In a significant new blow to al-Qaeda, U.S. air strikes in Yemen on Sept. 30 killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terrorist network’s most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the U.S.
The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaeda’s leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: al-Awlaki was an American citizen who had not been charged with any crime. Civil-liberties groups have questioned the government’s authority to kill an American without trial. (emphasis mine)
Like I said before, a law that only applies to nice folks isn’t a law, it’s a suggestion. Was al-Awlaki at the least a religious nut? Yes, he was. Legally, that was entirely beside the point: the U.S. government, according to the law, is not to kill, or so much as even harm in a way intended to punish, a citizen without first having proven that they committed a crime. To charge someone means to say you believe they did something and will attempt to prove it, yet no charge was brought up at all. Doesn’t matter now, government is judge jury and executioner.
Even if regardless of the law you feel the world is simply better off without this guy, that isn’t the issue. The issue is the authority being claimed, and who is next. A hint already exists as to the 2nd part of that:
Predator drones firing on homes suspected of containing drugs might not be as far away as we think…