I think its important to say what is actually being claimed. In the case of al-Awaki(Aulaqi) their claim is: "Such considerations allow for the use of lethal f

I think its important to say what is actually being claimed. In the case of al-Awaki(Aulaqi) their claim is: "Such considerations allow for the use of lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al'Qaida or its associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, in the following circumstances: (1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is not feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." With regard to the other three citizens that have been killed in a drone strike, their claim is that these individuals were not specifically targeted and were collateral damage. The document (http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf) does place emphasis on foreign country. So while not making any value judgement on the policy, I think its useful to see it in full, as currently understood. One interesting corollary to look at is the Civil War, where U.S. citizens took up arms against their government and were killed by the government, where no declaration of war took place. This is gotten tangential, but all I'm saying is current claims the U.S. has made do not seem to extend to extra-judicial killing of targets not engaged in active warfare on U.S. soil. Edited: to add quotation marks.