Becoming an officer in Al Qaeda seems to be the most efficient way to go about it.
And all I am asking for is for two witnesses to testify to that fact in open court, and for the Congress to determine a response. Exactly as laid out in the Constitution for exactly this circumstance. These are not difficult rules to understand. As it stands there has been no open court and the response has been determined by the Executive branch. This is a problem.
Accusations of any crime are serious things which must be handled with gravity and due process of law. Do I doubt that this man is a terrorist and a member of Al Qaeda? No. Do I doubt that the guy at a crime scene standing over the dead body with a knife in his hand and proudly shouting: "I KILLED THE BASTARD" is guilty of murder? No. But in neither case should these people be punished for their crime until that crime has been demonstrated and ruled on in open court. This is necessary for the rule of law, a cornerstone of the concept of Justice, and the lack of such systems is explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as one of the grievances against the British Crown.
Now if the man with the knife attacks his arresting officer, or if al-Awlaki presents an armed threat to the US Military they have every right to defend themselves with the necessary level of force up to and including lethal force. This is also not at issue here. Their rights to that effective self-defence are very clear. What they do not have the right to do is execute someone on the basis of the crime they have not been proven to commit.
Nor am I (in this instance) arguing against the ability of the executive branch to put out a kill order on any number of militants, terrorist leaders, etc. Let us grant that right to the Executive branch for the sake of this argument.
The substantive factor here is that this man is an American citizen. He was born in New Mexico and remains the countryman of every American. We have certain rights as afforded by our Constitution. Regardless of any accusations against him, any right denied him is a denial and an affront to the rights of all other citizens, and guaranteed proceeding not granted him is an affront to the Constitution.
What if he is? What if he isn't?
I am afraid I don't follow. Would you elaborate on why you think killing an innocent would not be the wrong thing to do?