"The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone." - an Anomymous U.S. official

Excuse me.  Did you just say that an American has been sentenced to death based upon the testimony of 'Anonymous'????

Look, I don't like Awlaki's ideology.  And if we kill him while he is engaged in battle to have his way... then so be it.  If we send soldiers to a training camp that we know has knowingly trained and directed people who have killed civilians, where the bureaucrat says Awlaki works, and Awlaki is indeed there, and indeed resists with deadly force, then he absolutely can be killed.  I would even go to such a camp and participate.

All it takes is one person convicted of killing civilians to cause all civilians to fear in order to make them influence government policy (i.e. terrorism) admitting where he was trained and directed (pretty easy), or one person going to the camp and saying, "I'd like to kill some innocents to make them change their government, is this the place to do that?" to determine the purpose of the camp.

After all, I would go because if I did not I could not expect to be free from coercion in making my political views known.  Nor could I be free to choose my own government.

But to officially condemn Awlaki to death, whether currently actively engaged in war against the U.S. or not, is worse than a violation of the Constitution, of Habeus Corpus, of the presumtion of innocence. 

It is the government making the assertion that an anonymous bureaucrat may decide who will live and who will die based on his own authority, with no appeal, with no requirement that the bureacrat show that the person to be killed is guilty, or even that a crime has been committed.

How can I be free to choose my own government, or to make known my political views, if a government bureaucrat, who may disagree with my views, can murder me with impunity on his own authority?

Under such a circumstance is there any reason for me to regard Awlaki and the government bureaucrat any differently?  Have they not both asserted the right to murder me for their own political purposes?

Would it matter to me which one killed me?  Would I not be equally dead either way?

Shortly, what does assassinating Awlaki accomplish?  If it does not increase our security and freedom from coercion then what is the point?

A person cannot free himself from tyranny and coercion by means of resort to tyranny and coercion.  If he tried he would find himself subject to tyranny and coercion anyway.  And he would find the act to be pointless.

GORDON