They have not been able to declare war on the entire world, including their own citizens, before now. Assassination has not been an accepted tool of foreign pol

They have not been able to declare war on the entire world, including their own citizens, before now. Assassination has not been an accepted tool of foreign policy for decades since Ford. Even in wartime (if this is indeed war), rules apply, so if you want to apply the rules of war assassinations of enemies who are unarmed and not on any battlefield are not permitted. Awlaki, and later his teenage son, and the innocents killed with them, were not killed on any battlefield or as part of any war, unless you redefine war to mean any killing outside the judicial process, as Bush and then Obama have done. But I think it's more useful to consider the methods used rather than arguing about semantics - the US president now claims the right to kill citizens, and anyone else, without trial or justification. That is a huge shift in policy and also has implications at home. If they can kill at will abroad, why not at home?