... there are a couple of points here that should make anyone wary: first, that the President of the United States could order the killing of an American citizen with no judicial proceedings, in a country (Yemen) with which we are not at war, simply because the President judges that person to be dangerous; and, second, the fuzziness used when discussing the exact nature of the danger Awlaki posed. ...

Was it as a conspirator or an inspirer that he was killed? The "senior Administration official" told the Times that his operational role was more important, and the A.P. noted that the Administration disclosed new "detailed intelligence to justify the killing of a U.S. citizen." If so, it makes the extrajudicial nature of this operation more frustrating. And when one hears about Awlaki being linked to a dozen terror cases, the link in question is more often a sermon or an article or e-mails about jihad, rather than what might be called overt acts. (The Washington Post noted that he had been "been implicated in helping to motivate several attacks on U.S. soil.") Would that have been enough?