The president should be given special powers to discard ones citizenship if he committed acts of treasons, make him a citizen of no country. Thus eliminate his right to fair trial. Laws of the land needs to evolve with time, these fucken terrorists dont give a shit about other peoples lives, and western governments are handicapped to respond by these out of date laws and liberal agendas..etc

If they have exhausted all efforts to capture them for trial, and they prove exceedingly dangerous. I think Awlaki qualified for the latter, but not for the former, given that i imagine this was another summary drone strike.

They should have done what they did with bin Laden, but captured him alive to afford him his constitutional rights

I think this is controversial but the truth.

Here in Canada the death penalty is illegal, so does that mean Canadian soldiers shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone? The laws of our country don't apply to military threats to our countries security. Unless the laws are military laws such as the anti-torture legislation or UN agreements.

It would be very hypocritical of the US to kill citizens of other countries without trials but when one of their own citizens is a threat to the global community protect him.

Being American is not a get out of jail free card, too often American's think because they are American that they are above international laws and can't be held or killed. This sense of invincibility is just wrong, it shows the world that America thinks Americans deserve preferential treatment.

Did Osama get a fair trial before they shot him? What about the thousands of Afghans and Iraqi's killed in drone attacks and air strikes? Why should a man get a trial just because he's American? Then how do you have a fair trial if he is not represented? Before every attack on a terrorist should we set up a court session hire a lawyer to represent the accused and once found guilty order the air strike?
Its irrational to suggest each terrorist attacking countries deserves a trial which is impossible. What about wanted dead or alive? Its been going on since the US was founded orders to kill fugitives without a trial. This is no different the US had no way of capturing this individual he was wanted dead or alive. In this case he was killed.

American citizens have no problem when an American soldier kills a Canadian terrorist or a British terrorist or Pakistani or Saudi or Yemeni terrorist. But the second an American terrorist gets killed to save hundreds to thousands of lives, oh No how dare they kill an American. America can't treat the rest of the world as inferior if they hope to ever be liked.

A terrorist actively involved with attacking foreign countries who is a military threat to US and international soldiers does not deserve any preferential treatment because they are American. This is a war not a civil courts case, the man who was killed had a dead or alive warrant which by US law authorizes use of fatal force. The American people wouldn't hesitate to kill a citizen of any other country under those pretexts.

Being against this American's death but not against every single drone attack or death warranted by the US Government against its own citizens, is pure hypocrisy.

Because the United States wss the one who killed him... and citizens should have certain rights that can't be voided without a trial.  Not the least of which being the government not killing you.

Your off base if Canada would of killed him, I wouldn't care.

If Canada would of killed a terrorist who was a Canadian citizen without a trial, then I'd have a problem.

Outside that... fair trial?  We aren't talking about a Fair trial vs an unfair one here.

We're talking about an in absentia trial vs EXECUTION.

Me, i'd rather have the whole inabsentia trial before they violated another countries soverign airspace and dronned my ass personally.

Previously he didn't qualify as a target because he was only in the propaganda wing.  Now they are claiming he's moved over into operations, but offered no proof of it.

So essentially, we're going purely on the governments word.

I don't see anything legally wrong here, he was wanted dead or alive the military and police couldn't take him alive so they killed him. This has been going on hundreds of years in the US , hundreds if not thousands of American citizens were killed without a trial of any sort. I can't see how this should be treated any differently especially since the guy was so adoment about killing American soldiers and citizens.

Your right I haven't seen evidence to suggest he actually planned any attacks. However he recruited and brainwashed tons of people to carry out these attacks. He met with known terrorists and encouraged them to carry out attacks, he was also rising through the ranks and is thought to have been a runner up for leader of Al-Qaida.

I agree its a little sketchy that the US Government can just kill someone off that they dislike. But they've been doing it for hundreds of years and so do all the major countries. Its nothing knew and to get outraged now is sorta late.

As for would I be outraged if Canada killed a Canadian citizen without a trial? Not in this case, now had the accused not been so obvious of their criminal intent and the Government not provide a good reason to justify the attack I would of course not support such an attack. Like say Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan killed a Canadian citizen and said he was a terrorist but didn't provide any evidence to support that claim. I'd be out raged.

But this man was so clearly an Al-Qaeda member he was an obvious threat either directly as the US claims (Planning attacks) or indirectly (Brainwashing recruits and supporting them in their attacks).

This is a war (War on Terror) and he is an enemy combatant. He had a dead or alive warrant and their is plenty of evidence that proves he was hostile and had criminal intent. He was an obvious threat and the US acted in its best interest in killing him. Though they might have been better off asking Britain or Canada or another country to pull the trigger. You said you wouldn't mind if another country killed him and don't mind America killing other countries citizens without trial.

So maybe a good move in the future would be every time a country is faced with having to kill one of their citizens just call up a close ally and have them do the job. That would erase all this, though there is still very little legal basis for being against this assasination!

this individual declared war on your country. he joined with an enemy force that wants to destroy your country and kill you.

i dont see any problems with killing him in the course of this fight.