DBP
There are really two issues being debated here: Due process and free speech.
► Due Process
Certainly, due process is important as a way of guaranteeing the rule of law and assuring that no one is ABOVE the law.
The right to due process under the Constitution normally applies to every American citizen; however, when a citizen takes up arms against his own country (or urges others to), and he does so from the territory of another country, is he still acting in the capacity of an American citizen? Or is he now acting in the capacity of a foreign enemy combatant?
How you answer this question determines where you stand on whether Awlaki was entitled to due process. If you think Awlaki was still an American for all intents and purposes, then yeah, he should’ve gotten due process, including an indictment and, if possible, a trial.
However, if you see Awlaki primarily as an enemy combatant, then he would be considered fair game under the rules of war.
Personally, I wish Obama had asked for an idictment on this guy, but I assume he had his reasons for not doing so. In the meantime, I’m not shedding any tears.
I understand the fears of those here who see this as a troublesome precedent. As I’ve stated above, however, the details of Awlaki’s case lead me to believe that it won’t be repeated. Ass-bowls of his particular type are thankfully rare.