Obama Puts a Hit Out on a US Citizen He Says is a Terrorist

(Updated below)

I'm exhausted. Too exhausted to muster up my typical righteous anger about this issue, so I'll just send you along to Glenn Greenwald, who has plenty.

Not really sure there's a money quote, so just read the thing, but here's a sample:

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

I'm not sure what else to add to that. Some people ask whether this is a question of taking him out when he's holding a gun shooting at US troops - it's not. It's the claim the the US Government can kill Anwar al-Awlaki when he's buying toilet paper somewhere. That's a really big difference. On the evidence we have (which is to say, only assertions by the CIA and no declassified evidence whatsoever), not even indefinite detention is allowed. Before Obama suggested it was, no one thought that it even might be. Now Obama's claiming this power, which, make no mistake, goes farther, and we have people claiming that it might be legitimate? Yeah, I guess anything's legitimate when we no longer have law.

Update: So since this post is basically just redirecting you to Greenwald, I'll pass on his continuation of it, which shows Olbermann's very good coverage of the issue. If for some reason, you feel even mildly tempted to attempt to rationlize this illegal, unconstitutional, and frankly disgusting declaration of the part of Obama, please please read this addition and watch the videos. It's utterly shocking that some of the same people can try to defend this under Obama, who decried eavesdropping and detention under Bush in the exact same circumstances. This is US-sanctioned murder, and cannot be permitted.