From the article: "I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment."
Why does the author not doubt it? I doubt it until I have seen evidence.
It is my understanding that Awlaki called for the murder of American civilians, but I do not believe that meets the legal standard of treason. The Obama administration has said that Awlaki was involved "operationally" in planning attacks on Americans, but the national security state has said all manner of speech constitutes operational involvement in terrorism, including Javed Iqbal's broadcast of Al Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television channel, and the Humanitarian Law Project's attempts to teach peaceful conflict resolution strategies to a terrorist group.
He is actively pre-empting attempts to derail his primary point.
It's possible he also believes that Awlaki committed treason, but more importantly, by making that point without any kind of moderation, he's making it substantially harder to accuse him of wanting to be soft on those horrible, evil terrorists.
He's also implicitly making the argument for a trial stronger: If it is entirely certain that Awlaki committed treason, then surely the government has clear evidence that would have made a trial a formality?
Why does the author not doubt it? I doubt it until I have seen evidence.
It is my understanding that Awlaki called for the murder of American civilians, but I do not believe that meets the legal standard of treason. The Obama administration has said that Awlaki was involved "operationally" in planning attacks on Americans, but the national security state has said all manner of speech constitutes operational involvement in terrorism, including Javed Iqbal's broadcast of Al Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television channel, and the Humanitarian Law Project's attempts to teach peaceful conflict resolution strategies to a terrorist group.