Which is why there is some talk of offering him Amnesty - to find out exactly how much and what he leaked (Among other things) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/report-nsa-mulls-...
I'd be pretty dubious about taking amnesty if I were him, too. Contracts under duress aren't legitimate. Chances are decent they'd get him here, claim duress, and throw him in Guantanamo.
The US lawyers argued "Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country... And while the Constitution generally requires judicial process before the government may kill an American, the Supreme Court has held that in some contexts — like when the police, in order to protect innocent bystanders, ram a car to stop a high-speed chase — no prior permission from a judge is necessary; the lawyers concluded that the wartime threat posed by Mr. Awlaki qualified as such a context, and so his constitutional rights did not bar the government from killing him without a trial. ... it is not unlawful “murder” when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense [so] the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike" [NYT, March 9, 2013].
greenyoda wrote: "He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process."
It therefore comes down to what you mean by "due process." I hold with greenyoda that the circumstances around Awlaki's deliberate killing were insufficient as to allow the exception to the judicial process, and that he therefore did not receive due process owed him by birthright.
You may think otherwise, but even in that case the situation as described is very close to to what greenyoda wrote. Why do you think it's "not at all" as described?