Not when they are US citizens with Constitutional rights. I know you guys like to wipe your asses with it, but some of us still think it's a pretty important document.
Are you saying we should have allowed Awlaki to continue to plot to kill Americans until we could figure our a way to capture him?
Did we try any of the American citizens who joined the German army in WWII in absentia?
Your argument has nothing at all to do with the constitution. In fact joining a military force engaged in operations against the US pretty much costs you your citizenship. That is in the US Civil Code. Awlaki could have gone to any US embassy or consulate to protest....he knew for months that he was on the target list. The ACLU and his parents filed suit against the US government to prevent his death. The court ruled against them.
In fact legal experts from both the Obama and Bush administrations had this to say:
"As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense."
Ken Anderson, who teaches at American University's Washington College of Law and follows U.S. policy on drones, says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target — U.S. citizen or not.
"The U.S has always seen somebody who is planning attacks against the United States as a lawful target," Anderson says.
Either because Awlaki presented an imminent threat to American citizens or because he had become an enemy fighting alongside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Anderson says, he could be seen as a lawful target.
