The constitution grants US citizens "due process." That does not necessarily mean a trial. If that's what it meant, that's what it would say. The urge to treat the requirement as a bright line requirement for a trial, regardless of context, goes against the plain text of the constitution. "Due" is inherently a context-sensitive word.
The question is: what process is "due" (literally, warranted or owed) to someone who wages war against the US from lawless regions of Yemen, evading capture for years? Its not an indefensible position to say "wild west" rules apply in that situation.
As much as I appreciate your opinion, I think we all can agree that turning this into an Anwar Al-Awlaki debate is not going to be beneficial for this topic at all.
I agree with you... but line of argument is going to open a can of worms I'd rather not see opened in this debate. This topic should be focused on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The problem is that this sort of reasoning poisons every topic. The reason for bringing up Al Awlaki is basically to say: "if the US government is murdering Americans in cold blood, what wont't they do?" And at that point debate is pointless. Okay, the rule of law is dead, let's move to Canada before we get drone striked for speaking ill of Obama.
Indeed, but you aren't going to convince ceejayoz on this matter. It isn't ceejayoz who you want to win over in this fight either, if he's already lost faith in the rule of law, then it is pointless to try and convince him to do something productive with the rule of law.
Do you want to get work done? Do you want to see legal change in America? Well, the way to step forward has already presented itself. Lets work forward, instead of focusing on tangential issues. I've pointed out the Senators who to support, and I've introduced the basic lay of the political field.
Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress. There is a single, clear, resounding message that can be brought to light here. Champion Wyden and Udall and amplify their message.
PS: Wyden and Udall have been critical of the Drones program as well.
"Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper progress."
The "literally" there - and the stressing of it - is rhetoric not argument. If Obama started assassinating anyone who disagreed, they'd be literally dead too, but addressing it would be a priority...
First, the Confrontation Clause isn't a shield meant to provide blanket protection from the use of force prior to a full trial. If it was, the police wouldn't be able to use force --- ever --- to deal with violent crimes in progress.
Second, Al-Awlaki (I assume this is who we're talking about) wasn't executed; he was assassinated. His killing was extrajudicial, a military action and not a law enforcement action. If that's disquieting to you, join the club, and consider whether the problem once again stems to the fact that the USG formally declared war on an organization rather than a state for the first time in its history.
Also worth knowing: Al-Awlaki's killing wasn't unprecedented. US citizens, believed (probably correctly) to be aiding and fighting alongside the Axis powers, were targeted and killed during World War II by US troops.
