Note however that the criminal cleric al Awlaki AND his son were killed AFTER initiation of the lawsuit. The judiciary has an obligation to prove its own gonads by recognizing that the airstrikes against two American citizens (however reprehensible excuses for human beings) are a direct challenge to judicial authority. What would the judiciary do if an apparently state statute authorized governor of a state ordered state police and militia to militarily attack an abortion mill and kill all the perps of the abortions (right down to the receptionists and the janitors and the security guards) on the perfectly sensible theory that they are engaged in a conspiracy in serial homicide and present a clear and present danger of continuing their abortions, Roe vs. Wade or no Roe vs. Wade? Without modification of Roe vs. Wade, the judiciary would go nuclear. Due process is quite explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution unlike "reproductive rights" or anti-reproductive "rights" for that matter.
Agree re Roe v and Lockerbie worth a second bombing.
But from what I can see re the Awlaki case, (even before this new piece of legislation that says US citizens on US soil can be indefinitely detained) — yes one might successfully fight for gaining some legal right to defend yourself once you’ve been put on the government’s kill list, but when and if you win that right, it may only be after you are dead — which does pretty much defeat the purpose.