So, if doing things right is hard, just give up and half-ass it. Good plan. That has longevity written all over it.

What's your plan Einstein? Try to actually say something... an actual plan I mean.

If the guy is guilty of committing treason, and no one here has suggested that he has not committed treason, he should be indicted and tried in federal courts, in absentia if necessary....after which he is found guilty, he is subject to death.

That is how the law works in a nation of laws.

I agree, redux. But if he gets killed in the melee of killing terrorists, even specifically targeted because he's a particularly nasty terrorist - well that's fine too.

The rule of law is very simple. We elect a President who makes those decisions. Let's hope we always choose wisely.

"Rule of the Law" should go out the window when they changed the rules. Period.

Fight them on the same plane or perish.

As long as there are those who believe the Constitution is a " living document," then any behavior by government fiat will happen. How many Americans have been killed sice Roe VS Wade?

Oh no you did not just drop an Einstein bomb on me, Buns Of Steel. And now I have to come up with a plan--what am I, an expert on this stuff? Jesus, have some kind of military tribunal and say he isn't required to appear because he is in contempt of court or something. How the hell should I know how you do it?

I'm more concerned about where we're heading as a nation if we don't even consider this a serious issue that should have a little thought applied to it. Should we just write the government a blank check on this one?

Dude, the rule of law I'm talking about is here to protect YOU and ME and the integrity of our whole system, NOT to coddle criminals or terrorists--you've got it completely backwards (or else you're just trying to read "code talk" into my posts). Do you not understand that a stable society with an accountable system of justice is a fragile luxury that we should cherish, and seek to protect? The privileges we have didn't just fall into our lap.

Those are exactly the rules and procedures that thwart our government from reacting to terrorist threats, as they arise.
Captain, were got three of them in our sights, permission to shoot?
No, one of they is Anwar al-Awlaki, and he hasn't been tried yet.

I would agree partially with both sides of this argument.

If the person is a U.S. citizen and is arrested in the U.S. (or can be arrested abroad and brought back), they should be tried in this country in the federal justice system. As much as I don't like trying (alleged) terrorists in our courts...if they are citizens, they should be afforded all rights. If they are convicted of treason, they should be executed as is spelled out by the law after all appeals are exhausted.

If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and is caught IN the U.S., they should be turned over to the military or intelligence agency. They should then be tried in a military tribunal and, if found guilty, executed after any and all appeals are exhausted. However, they should NOT be afforded the same rights as would a citizen.

If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and cannot be apprehended without great risk to others, they should be taken out by any means necessary. Whether it is a sniper shot to the head from 1000 yards, a missile from a Predator drone or a 1000 lb bomb. Before that point, however, all information against the potential dead guy should be presented to a special panel who must vote unanimously that the guy has to cease to exist for the sake of national security. Who sits on that panel would need to be worked on. Should it be members of the military? Senators? Intelligence Operatives? Citizens? I don't know.

Add: After thinking about my response...I don't think I hit on the MAIN conflict...the killing of someone who IS a U.S. citizen. I covered the situation wherein they are inside of the U.S. and can be apprehended. If the person is located outside of the U.S. and cannot be apprehended safely...see the solution provided for in the above paragraph.

Just bomb the area and call al-Awlaki's death collateral damage.

[threadjack]
How about the many American women who have not died due to horrible medical conditions in illegal abortions? Abortion happens whether it is legal or not, in legal countries it is no more prevalent. In countries where it is illegal the death rate due to abortion is deplorable. Most abortions are not just a simple choice, they are due to extenuating circumstances. Such as rape, incest, young age or poverty.
If you really want to work against abortion, the legality of the procedure is not the problem. Comprehensive sex education and access to low cost birth control are the most responsible way to reduce the number of elective abortions.
The public needs choice about their procreation, not condemnation.
[/threadjack]


Now as you were....

I favor Choice. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If abortion is immoral, then (insert your chosen deity here) will deal with the immoral when the time comes.

PS: Being gay is the surest way to avoid pregnancy, yet that is bad, too, for those who oppose abortion, generally speaking.

Removing options for women to determine whether or not they wish to give birth is Patriocracy. If women had been the dominant gender for the last 3000 years, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

...nor a population problem

So if women think it's safer for them to kill any man at will, then they can trump the constitution's bill of rights?