Please cite the evidence that Al Awlaki was an active participant in battle against us.
If he was shooting at our troops, then that is clear self-defense. This was not that.
Second, threats against the government or US citizens is not justification for assassination....which is what this was....the assassination of a US citizen and his son, away from any known combat area, under the order of one man.
If that was the case, many FReepers would be eligible for assassination by this President today.
I guess you do not think such awesome power to declare a citizen “an enemy” and order their assassination should have any checks or balances.
Was Osama actively shooting at our troops when a commando raid attacked and killed him?
Were any of the 9/11 hijackers shooting at Americans prior to their initiating the hijack? Should they therefore have been exempt from attack up until that moment?
In your world, are is the US military limited to defensive action? We’re not allowed to attack the enemy?
Has any military operation of the USA ever had anything resembling due process proceedings for enemies, or have they just been located and attacked as possible? Before attacking enemy forces in WWII, due we carefully screen thru them to make sure there weren’t any US citizens among them?
OK, that last one’s a little hyperbolic. But the point remains. These guys are continuously plotting attacks on Americans. Doesn’t anybody else remember the first few days after 9/11, when we all assumed we’d have such attacks weekly or monthly?
We haven’t had those attacks. Is that because they’ve lost the desire to kill Americans, or is it because our intelligence and military have disrupted their attacks?
Can you define another way by which enemies of the United States, hiding out among the civilian population in distant lands, should be attacked? Should we invade Yemen, as we did Afghanistan and Iraq? What would that do, except cause the enemies to flee elsewhere?
I find the process disturbing, but I see no other logical method of carrying the fight to the enemy. I also see no part of the Constitution that requires the President or military to treat citizen enemies of the United States overseas differently from non-citizen enemies. If you know of such, feel free to post it.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
One can make a decent argument that this functional declaration of war against "international terrorism" should be re-examined, that these powers are too great and should be subject to checks or balances, but one simply cannot claim that the President's actions aren't authorized by them in a fully Constitutional way.