What I do say is that a public servant should not have the right to declare someone worthy of death without any legal process and without any verifiable evidenc

What I do say is that a public servant should not have the right to declare someone worthy of death without any legal process and without any verifiable evidence. There are legal proceedings in absentia all the time. The protection of not having a trial in absentia, making it illegal, is so that the punishment is just. It is not a loop hole to say, "to hell with it let's just kill because law." Is the evidence for literally all the claims above still "leaked to a newspaper by a public servant but officially neither confirmed nor denied"? Or are some public servants "on the record making the claim"? Is there anything testable and verifiable? The claims may be entirely correct, I don't know and I don't actually care much. A claim is not evidence. I claim there are war criminals in the US government right now who should be extradited to the Hague, but so what if I claim that? It's of mild interest to some but has no baring on whether shooting them is legal, justified or something I should do anything but oppose. Your closing comment: "What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all" Strawman. Nobody claimed that in this conversation.