I hope you’ll forgive the somewhat sensationalistic headline, but I think it is more or less tells the truth. If you’re deemed a threat by the government, you can be targeted for assassination, even if you’re an American citizen.

That is the case for Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Islamic cleric who has been tied to Nidal Malik Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter, as well as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber.”  Today we found out that President Obama  gave the CIA permission to kill al-Awlaki. The rub? Unlike a lot of our other radical Islamic cleric enemies, al-Awlaki is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Don’t get me wrong; al-Awlaki is asking for it, and he has asked for a bullet in his head for a long time, by his actions.  That said, the last time I checked, American citizens have certain rights under the Constitution of the United States, one of which is, when they’ve committed crimes, a right to a trial before a jury of their peers.  By this authorization, Obama has essentially said that an American citizen labeled a terrorist is not eligible for his constitutionally ensured rights.

This is a huge grab of power by the Executive Branch, and their justifications don’t really hold up.

In February, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said that in order to carry out these assassinations, special permission must be granted.  By whom must the Executive Branch situated CIA get permission?  By the President.  So much for checks and balances!  But that’s okay, because there are conditions that must be met:

He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include “whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved.”

Err, so under this rationale, I take it groups like the Hutaree are also eligible to be targeted for assassination?  They were clear threats to other Americans, and police officers to boot.  They also have a stated goal of war against the United States.  Of course, nobody would seriously think of trying to assassinate a stateside terrorist group.  Right?  Right?

“They’re a threat” is not an argument for ignoring the rule of law.

Such should be the case with al-Awlaki.  The goal should be to capture and try him, not assassinate him.  The end result will probably result in the death penalty, anyway, but at least we won’t have violated the Constitution, and everything this country was founded on to do it.  If we can get close enough to kill him, why not try to go the extra step and get him back here for a trial?

Possibly more distressing than this policy is how much support it seems to have among conservatives.  Andy McCarthy at NRO and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air support it, though NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson has concerns about the precdent it sets.

To closer it up, realistically al-Awlaki would probably rather die than be taken back here, and would probably fight any attempts to do it.  In that case, then I have no problem with killing him.  But otherwise, capture and try.  Anything else is a clear violation of the Constitution, and Obama should be ashamed of this dangerous precedent he has set.