Why Answar al-Awlaki still Matters, finally

Yes, he's now dead, and the world is a better place for his unnatural passing. Nonetheless, Mr. al-Awlaki was an American citizen, who the Executive Branch had declared to be an "Enemy Combatant" - an enemy of the state, if U will. Accordingly, Mr. al-Awlaki was targeted for termination with extreme prejudice. He was then killed in the wilds of ungoverned Yemen by the CIA operated drone hit team, working with the super secret Navy Seals to locate him and put the radar cross-hairs on his head, literally. This execution (thru war making powers) of a person making war on America is legally, ethically or morally justified in my judgment.

In a war, the Executive uses appropriately all the assets available to "kill the enemy and seize enemy held territory" as my drill instructor yelled at me at Ft. Bragg in 1970. It's the process of targeting Awlaki that gives me pause. The Justice Department has reportedly given the President a legal opinion that concludes that this homicide is legal under the law of war. Fine, but on what basis in our Constitutional Republic is such critical "life and death" document stamped "top secret" and hidden from the public. Secret law is anathema to a free society, so I want to know what are the limiting principles of a President's legal authority to kill without charges, trial or any due process protections those persons that the executive branch deems to be enemies of the state. We definitely got it right on this first American citizen's homicide by Presidential Fiat. I want to make sure that the next dozen or tens of dozen of such kills are legal, ethical and morally justified as well.

Remember, every federal government activity starts with all good intentions, decades later, however, many of these programs have no boundaries or limits on their reach or scope of application. When it comes to summary executions, that exercise of absolute power has got to be perfect every time - something government has never done well.