[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Institute judicial proceedings (or whatever the legally/constitutionally required proceedures are) and strip him of his citizenship. As a matter of principle I disagree with the US government ordering the extra-judicial killing of AMCITs. After he's "stateless" then kill him. Put a bounty on his head and let good ol' capitalism solve the problem (sorry, got carried away and forgot which POTUS we were discussing).

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I waver back and forth on this issue. He is a terrorist he needs dead.. he is an American citizen he should be afforded due process.

If we, as a nation, allow one person, even a traitor, to NOT be afforded his due process rights. Then we, as a nation, set the precedent, to have our own selves, for any reason that any administration can conjur up, to round us all up and kill/perm detain us?

<<SNIP>>

What would be so hard about charging and trying him in absentia of Treason?

FWIW, I agree with the sentiments expressed in these two posts. I think the options of revoking an Americans citizenship and/or trying him for treason in absentia merit thoughtful discussion.

It remains my opinion that these and other issues are problems today because congressmen and senators decided not to do their jobs in 2002.

An observation. I am taking these news reports with a five pound bag of salt because none of the unnamed sources seem to be familiar with the full text of the president's authorization or the nuances of the debate within the administration.

For example, the 27 January 2010 Washington Post article points out the following.

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture.

This nuance suggests there may be a greater depth of thought behind the decision than journalistic accounts would have us believe.

• How do we know that the president's authorization does not state that every reasonable means should be taken to capture al-Alwaki and that killing him is an acceptable alternative only if these means are unavailable?
• How do we know that the president's authorization does not also include other qualifiers that define further the circumstances in which al-Alwaki is killed?
• How do we know that the president has not developed a sustainable argument as to why the authorization is appropriate--and legal?

While it is conceivable that the current administration was simply too busy to bother with such nuances, it is equally possible that news outlets are repeating the mistake of thinking that getting the story published is more important than getting the story right. Or, as the Washington Post put it:

Correction to This Article
The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture. After The Post's report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood. Additional reporting produced no independent confirmation of the original report, and a CIA spokesman said that The Post's account of the list was incorrect. The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans. In recent weeks, U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities that threaten Americans.