How was I being condescending? I was simply explaining the important difference between the criminal justice system, which exists to maintain internal order and the security of individuals, and the military, which exists to protect the nation from foreign threats.
Al Awalki was in a foreign country--where U.S. criminal laws presumptively do not apply--organizing armed action by foreigners against the United States. It's an archetypal act of war, rather than a crime.
Your question is disingenuous because it ignores the factual context. Due process is inherently concerned with the particular factual circumstances. It has never meant that you get a full trial in every circumstance. So no, the U.S. government is not entitled to kill a U.S. citizen once he leaves U.S. soil as a categorical rule. But it can do so if it provides process commensurate with the circumstances. Which brings us back to the question: What process is "due" to someone who commits something that is not a crime, but rather is an archetypal act of war, from foreign soil?
What was the "archetypal" act of war, and in what way(s) was it more serious than actually taking up arms against the US?
But even so, why ask me? You're a lawyer, you know how to provide extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims relevant to what is by no means a settled question.
As you may be know, CIA/JSOC statements about the people they kill are often complete fabrications. For example, for years they classified any military-age male killed in a drone strike as a combatant. This included even if the the CIA/JSOC did not have any evidence of what violent acts the men had committed or planned, did not know their names, or did not even know how many "combatants" had been killed in a strike. The victims of these strikes are sometimes just drinking tea, attending weddings or funerals, or even attempting to provide medical aid to victims of a drone strike minutes or hours before.
