LOL. That is changing as per Biblical prophecies of 19 centuries ago, i.e. the global government and marks, numbers monetary system, i.e. the New World Order, i.e. the 10 horned beast of Revelation. All of the recent presidents of both parties and particularly Barak Obama et al have been and continue to make it happen.
I'm not understanding the objection. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He's Constitutionally empowered to determine military objectives. The sole limitations on military objectives are the US Constitution, our treaties with other nations, and the terms by which Congress authorizes military force.
Holding a US passport (and there's no evidence that he actually did) doesn't immunize you against the military. It's not a magic anti-bullet shield. If Anwar al-Awlaqi had been arrested and taken into US custody, it certainly would have been illegal to execute him without a trial. But he wasn't. He was a casualty of a military strike.
I didn't object to them killing him.
I objected to you saying that it wasn't an "ordered killing", and to you calling it "a strike on a battlefield" as though there was anyone else at all involved except him and his entourage and as if he just got hit by a stray round in all the confusion.
What happened was: they decided to kill him, found out exactly where he was, and shot a couple of missiles directly at him. Then they said "hooray, we killed him". It's not like he just happened to be standing where they were shooting their missiles and they said: "What, we killed who now? Well there's a stroke of luck!"
It's a distinction without a difference. If the President orders an airstrike on an al-Qaeda training camp, they don't wait for people to clear out of it - indeed, killing the people who are training there is as much an objective as destroying the assets at the camp itself. Is that an "ordered killing"? If you fire an air-to-air missile at another airplane, the goal is not so much to destroy the easily-replaced airplane but to kill the expensively-trained pilot; is that also an "ordered killing"?
I think the difference is that they were deliberately trying to kill one specific named person. They weren't trying to kill a generalized "the people in the training camp" or "the pilot of the plane", they had a missile with his name on it.
How about snipers? While its not uncommon for military snipers to fire in an anti-materiel capacity, it's more common for them to set their sights on enemy officers. Is that an "ordered killing" as well? If it is, it's never been understood to be something outside of the appropriate realm of military conduct.
I never said that killing Anwar al-Awlaqi was "outside of the appropriate realm of military conduct". I approve of killing him. I merely say that they did so deliberately.
The point of the strike was to take out Anwar al-Awlaki's capabilities to harm US citizens. As such, the targets were his resources, his vehicles, his associates, and his own person, since killing him would certainly neutralize him as a threat.
I think you're displaying a certain naivete about what soldiers actually do. The reason they carry guns is to carry out targeted killings of the soldiers on the other side. Combat isn't just a thing where soldiers face each other and then spray bullets around, hoping that one side will get nervous and leave. They're taking aim and firing at each other with the intent to kill. Soldiers try to kill each other, it's not something new.
So in defense of your claim that it wasn't an ordered killing, you're going to argue that all deaths in war are in effect ordered killings?