When i first read about this, i was outraged! I thought that we had taken one of our own citizens and just decided to execute them without reason, without a trial, without a chance of self-defense. But when i read the original article (linked above), there were some things that caught my eye. First was the link to a previous story, giving a bit more history about al-Aulaqi and why he was put on the — second thing that caught my eye — capture-or-kill list. The operative words are CAPTURE or KILL. This means that he’s not being executed or assassinated, he’s a wanted man. I make the connection between this and the posters from the Old West, “WANTED: Dead or Alive”.
I can see how people might be upset that we’re going after one of our own citizens, but if that citizen has blatantly turned his back on our country and everything it stands for (good and bad), and is openly trying to harm it. I don’t see why we have to extend a hand and say, “Come back, we’ll give you a trial in our extremely flawed and overly complicated legal system”. We will either capture you and treat you as an enemy of the state, or if it comes down to it, we won’t hesitate to kill you. This doesn’t mean though that we’re just going to shoot you when we see you.
If this guy is actually a cleric, and not really a terrorist like the mounds of evidence seem to show, then he should turn himself over.