talkpolitics | (no subject)

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My point wasn't about Al-Awlaki being a member of the military, so much as establishing that precendent that a requirement for a trial during wartime is not an absolute.

That said, I do dispute that Al-Awlaki is not a member of Al Qaeda, which makes him a military foe of the United States by definition. But that's a seperate issue.

Anyway, that's quite a wall of text you've got there there, are you able to you quote me the specific phrase or paragraph that says that a trial is required?