In 1997, a threat to (local) society in L.A. (North Hollywood) two bank robbers were shot to death, as the police took it upon themselves to not go through due process, and instead brought immediate justice. By the logic of some, they should not have been shot. They should have been taken through "due process" instead. In order for this to happen they would have had to run out of ammo, and altogether been done with their murders, then arrested and placed in jail, and then taken to court. Anwar al-Awlaki, was also brought to justice instead of going through due process, to which I agree. He should have been. Nothing different here in either situation. Some are satisfied he is dead, yet at the same time complain that he didn't go through due process. ????? Really ?????? It has been argued on here that due process didn't happen with Anwar. Due process also didn't happen in L.A. It also hasn't happened in many cases where a threat was simply taken out and justice was served immediately, to which I agree. This was what happened, versus "due process." No one then, and now, according to my knowledge complained that "due process" wasn't followed in the North Hollywood incident. No one waved the Constitution in complaint. No one carried a flag down the street in protest. I expect all complaining about the situation now, specifically Anwar's situtation, to protest each and every situation where a person who is threatening the lives of others is taken out. Every single time with no exceptions. Who, among the two above posed the greater threat to the World? Those who clamour for due process state that we are all now under threat due to this instance with Anwar. Does this now mean Obama will point to a page in a phone book and send a missile to the one to whom his finger has found? Absolutely not. Justice was served in 1997, and in 2011.