I have fears above and beyond everyday safety of a government unrestrained... I fear it from any party in control, but I am not an anarchist. That said, this individual was more than a loud mouth spewing anti-American rhetoric. I do not wish those types be killed, I wish they had their own cable network! But this fellow goes beyond chatter.
He was actively using the internet to recruit Americans and others into Al Qaeda, he had dealings with the Ft Hood shooter and other terrorists (yeah, I am wary of guilt by association too), but it wasn't the scary words, he was a major leader of an active Al Qaeda group and made the "list". He knew he was on the list, his family knew also. His was the first such killing by our gov since 2001...not that that lessens my fears of things along the lines of ZRX posts above. The door being cracked scares me admittedly. But at least there has not been a decade of random applications.
But there are a few differences here that make me a bit more comfortable that this is an isolated and legally justifiable act rather than a horrific precedence, though the argument against is certainly strong and valid and may never be closed. In this case, info from editorial in today's Boston Globe, the ACLU (the group everyone loves to hate) filed suit per his father saying due to Awlaki's presence outside a war zone eg Iraq/Afghanistan the US should be limited to apprehending him via law enforcement. The suit was dismissed as the gov cited enough evidence subjecting him to military force under a post 9/11 law.
No one pulled a surprise move here while legality was being debated.
I have paraphrased the editorial. And I am not totally at ease with what happened, but I am not totally against the rationalization either. But the debate must be kept alive for our own individual protection.