the proof that he was involved and directed 9/11 is pretty much a lock.

^{Bad decisions make good stories.}

... that incites foreign nationals to attack US citizens is not subject to loss of US citizenship? Technically that is correct, but morally and practically it is wrong, and I am willing to overlook the fine points of the law in this case. In other words, I do not consider any person that incites foreign nationals to commit atrocities against Americans to be an American.

One problem with categorizing Al-Qaeda members as non-military is that for the rare American that actively sides with the foreign enemy, the laws of US citizenship do not apply. Citizenship can be removed "by entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state." High ranking leaders in Al-Qaeda can and should be, for all practical purposes, be considered officers of the armed forces of a foreign state. Specially if we are "at war" with that de-facto state.

But it all boils down to this. The guy that was blown up was a leader in a group that actively promotes violence against innocent people for his own benefit. He deserved to be blown up, and the world is better off without him.

oh please, half the damn leaders in the world are guilty of this

“Easy is an adjective used to describe a woman who has the sexual morals of a man.” ~ anon :D

...for a nation to designate its own citizen as a military target. Personally, I don't like it in that I think it has the potential for justifying and even encouraging potentially massive abuses, but I don't actually know how we get away from it. Otherwise, one gets to a situation where two equally guilty and threatening "bad guys" are standing side by side and one, being a foreign national, is a legal military target and the other, being American, isn't.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

it interesting that death is deserved by anyone who is suspected of advocating anti-american thoughts or actions. As each drone flies and each bomb flies, more people will qualify for execution. The thoughts and actions of those who remain should surely grow more pointed there minds focused by the threat we represent. Perhaps, we will solve the growing problems with ecological collapse before we have to send the drones to Cleveland or Paris. I'm sure there is someone it both cities who has made threatening remarks about some important American.

By maintaining the legal separation of civilian and military.

Since when are civilians guilty without a trial?

Since when is being threatening, in a non-imminent sense, cause for preventive killing?

If someone is engaging in terrorist activities, then arrest them and try them. If someone is exercising his or her 1st amendment rights, do not summarily execute them for it.

When the power and authority for this sort of policing is transferred to a global body such as the United Nations, the issue simply disappears. Issues such as targeted assassination etc become a matter for the international community to decide the morality and ethics of; action such as that either derives legitimacy through consensus or is refused.

Note I didn't say "easy", I just said "simple". We may not get there within my lifetime, but it's completely inevitable in the longer term.

...interests that privilege sovereignty over internationalist arrangements in this domain. It's about the only thing that everyone from the SC to the modern version of the nonaligned movement seems to agree on. One gets UN consensus in this sort of scenario when no one cares (and it's hence unlikely to happen) or when it's manufactured (and hence it's situational and a pretty small step from a sovereign power [or group of powers] just doing it itself). Post-facto review, that I could see (e.g., ICC), but not on the front end.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

a person can cross the line and become a person that needs to be silenced.

And that point is what, as decided by whom? Accepting that a political leader can single-handedly make those determinations is the essence of dictatorship, and I can't really think of any leader that did so without becoming a tyrant. Where I disagree with Sean Paul Kelley is in his belief that it makes a difference whether the person to be snuffed is American or not. But then the Emperor's power of life or death over the conquered peoples is not one I agree with either.

As for Pol Pot and Hitler and the like -- war has not generally involved sending assassination squads after the enemies' heads of state. Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, but neither Britain nor France nor Russia sent assassins after Kaiser Wilhelm, as Wilhelm did not send assassins against Nicholas II, George V, or Clemenceau. The same three plus the U.S. did not send assassins after Hitler. When his chief ministers were captured in the closing days of the war, they were not summarily executed on the orders of Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, nor Stalin. They were arrested and tried in a court of law. This is for those of you who believe that the "War on Terror" is a war, which you think justifies killing people because of status (hey, they're enemy combatants because they aren't us and they're in an area we claim as a battleground).

The naked exercise of power is a comfort to authoritarians, and a failure to those who believe in liberty.

of America but also damaged its psyche. The US needs therapy real soon if it wants to save itself from itself.

_{Sexual inequality is "The Mother of all Inequalities".
Liberate female sexuality and you will eliminate racism, homophobia, financial greed, and violence.}

...of drone systems.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

and the context of Yemen it was a drone. I think that's a pretty safe assumption at this point. Of course, I could be wrong and if I am I'll be happy to admit it.

^{Bad decisions make good stories.}