The NYT Editorial on al-Awlaki has finally been published, Justifying the Killing of an American (Published: October 11, 2011). As compared to the in-depth coverage we've seen over the last week, the editorial is comparatively weak tea.

Its BLUF is:

Mr. Awlaki was not entitled to full protections — an open-court trial in absentia would have been time-wasting and impractical — but as an American, he was entitled to some. The memo said Mr. Awlaki should be captured if feasible — an important principle, even though the government did not believe it could safely put commandos in Yemen to capture him.

Due process means more than a military risk analysis. It requires unambiguous and public guidelines for how the United States will follow federal and international law in approving targeted killings, particularly of Americans. And it means taking the decision beyond the executive echo chamber. We have argued that judicial review is required, perhaps a closed-door court similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, before anyone, especially a citizen, is placed on an assassination list.

The Obama administration seems to know that antiterrorist operations do not escape the rule of law. Its case would be far stronger if it would say so, out loud.
This quote allows me to segue into one of the concerns raised by Worthington and several of the items in Bill Moore's last post. But, later; I've a noon appointment.

Regards

Mike