IANAL but it seems to me the mental workflow of determining the legality of all this is definitely not what I think it should be. For the non-citizen, it seems

IANAL but it seems to me the mental workflow of determining the legality of all this is definitely not what I think it should be. For the non-citizen, it seems clear to me the judge's determining that there is no standing to even raise the issue in a US court is sound. If I was theoretically plotting against some other (non-US) nation - say, Canada for argument's sake - I have no relationship, obligation, or anything really with Canada. And they have none with me. So the idea that Canada should be forced to explain itself to me or prove anything to me is absurd. They owe me nothing and I owe them nothing (unless perhaps I am within their borders, then a few obligations are there for both sides). For the US citizen, the court definitely has jurisdiction as this is a federal court and we're talking about the actions of the federal branch of the US government taking action against a citizen. Also, this is a civil case, so the question then becomes whether or not there is presiding law on this and whether the claims have merit. There is very little law for this specific type of case (drone strikes). The lawsuit didn't actually claim a rights violation (which seriously surprised me). But before all of that, the heart of this drone strike murder issue against a US citizen has it's roots in due process. The big question is whether or not due process still applies to actions against a citizen when not on US soil. That answer is most definitely not clear and to my knowledge has never been answered by a court. Clearly, the constitutional and the law in general apply within US borders. However, in most cases the law ends at the border. But there are things that citizens can do overseas and face charges for at home. So is the reverse true? Is there anything that the US government can do to us while we are not on US soil that violates the law? Does the obligation to protect (or at least not violate) my constitutional rights still exist once I cross the border? Until this question is answered, I don't think anything else in this case can be answered with certainty. This also excludes the entire examination of potential criminal (not civil) violations or violations of international law, war crimes, violations of conventions like Geneva, Hague, etc.