Imagine what he could have done with more support.

I notice you didn't say I was wrong.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-killing-a-reckoning-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/

correct. i generally don't take one side or another on serious matters unless i have direct knowledge of the facts and circumstances, and even then, i only weigh in if i think i can contribute something useful to the discussion. since i wasn't present in any meetings where that operation was discussed or planned, i don't have direct knowledge of it, so i can't contribute much to a discussion of it. did Obama oversee it directly? i don't know. did he say, 'the evidence is clear, and inaction (or some other action) would result in more lives being lost'? i don't know. see? nothing useful to contribute. except maybe this: i hope that you might say to yourself, 'maybe i should take that approach, too'

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business," Gibbs

Yes, Obama oversaw it directly, signed off on it personally, and was involved in the crafting of the rules that allowed it, took credit for it, called it a good thing, and an easy decision. What if he didn't is OK to entertain but can become a hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy if taken too far.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lllExoXt-iQ

Personally I think Obama did rather OK as a president. The IRS targeting opponents, spying on Trump, increased droning, and budgets so laughable the dems rejected them wholesale are some of the things I didn't like about him.

it's like you didn't read a word i said.

Check Obama's direct comment on it.

i didn't hear him claim direct oversight, signing off on it personally, or calling it an easy decision. it could all be so, but i didn't hear it in that video. if the gov't had strong evidence that Awlaki had done all they claimed, i can see why Obama would have to put a good face on the killing after the fact. i thought something similar after Bin Laden was killed. it didn't seem like something Obama would authorize if he could have been captured instead. but as i said, i wasn't there, and i generally see other people's judgments as just that. their judgments.

Evidence hasn't presented to a court as should be required. We're being asked to just take their word for it. It was also in a civilian area in a country we are not as war with.

evidence in court is great, but at the time people were being killed. if someone broke into you house and your family's lives were in immediate danger, would you think 'i need to take this joker alive and get him in court'?

Putting him on the list to target for death should requite some form of due process. Your making it sound like this was an attack of opportunity, but it wasn't.

Now think if a cop decided you should die, hunted you down, and killed you with a rocket. Should that be allowed?

i wasn't saying an attack of opportunity, but an attack in a context where people were dying, and where more people were likely to die. a choice had to be made and it was made, by whoever made it, i expect ,with the goal of saving lives. if a person is killing others (i say, if), they have forfeited their own right to life. do you agree to that? and if they truly are doing it, their formal nationality wouldn't make a difference to me. again, if i was directly aware of the evidence of the killing and the killer. i'm sure you'd protect your family over an active armed culprit. the fact of it occurring at a given moment doesn't matter much if you can't capture the person without risking more lives.

Your analogy has an immanent threat that doesn't exists here. If in such a situation,if I fired a rocket that killed many innocent bystanders, I'd be charged with murder. If I killed a single person in self defense or defense of another, I'd be required to prove it in court.

The constitution requires due process, and we're relying on the government's word that an actual threat existed. Even now, no review is being done and this is the first time a American citizen was directly targeted in such a way.

I can understand their might be need to do so, and the innocent people get killed in war, but the due process rights need upheld and a least a proper review (even a classified review for national security) after the fact should be done with a process in place for such an act to prevent future abuse.

As such it is now secret and unreviewable.

https://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/usca2-olc-memo-6232014.pdf