TREASON IS the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. It consists of levying war against the United States or in adhering to the nation's enemies, giving them aid and comfort. If everything we have been led to believe about Anwar al-Awlaki is true, then it is almost certain that he committed treason against the United States, and I shed no tears for his demise.
However, it seems rather clear that our president found al-Awlaki guilty of treason or felony without trial, and ordered his execution. However despicable we considered al-Awlaki to be, the U.S. Constitution denies to the president the authority to be judge, jury and executioner of any American citizen.
Al-Awlaki was not killed on a battlefield where he was engaged in combat with U.S. soldiers. He was killed in Yemen, a country where we are not engaged in military hostilities at all. Indeed, had he been shot with a pistol while on the road, the shooter would probably be guilty of murder under the local law of Yemen.
Our relief at knowing that a terrorist mastermind has been killed should not blind us to the serious implications of how he came to be executed. Unlike Osama bin Laden, who was not a U.S. citizen, was not killed on U.S. soil, and was not entitled to the benefits of the U.S. Constitution, al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and, arguably, was entitled to the safeguards of our Constitution. On what legal basis, therefore, can the president of the United States issue an order to kill an American citizen?
Read more:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-25/news/30320532_1_anwar-al-awlaki-citizen-treason