This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"
This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.
OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.
The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary, irregardless of nationality.
If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?
I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.
If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.
We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.
Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.
To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case
in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.
Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.
You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.