These were (or at least were claimed to be) enemies of the United States at active war with us. They were attacked in a foreign country under the terms of a congressional authorization to use force, the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.
Is there some law of war of provision of the Constitution of which I’m not aware whereby enemies aren’t to be attacked in their homes?
As I said, I have no way of determining whether these were legal targets, but if they were what do you you think the procedure for attacking them should be?
For some obscure reason, people get all bent out of shape by the use of drones. But a drone attack is no different in principle from a fighter strike, a commando attack like the one that killed Osama, or a sniper attack. If any of those are justified, then so is use of a drone.
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.
“the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.”
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say a word about “functional equivalents”. I’d suggest you return the one you have to whomever sold it to you, get your money back, and purchase a correct one.
L