Did you read through the document - I took 45 minutes to parse it before commenting on it.
I'm pretty much a left-liberal-pro-individual rights person. 100% opposed to the death penalty for criminals that have been locked up. But, I still recognize that the United States is a nation at war, and has been so for the better part of 10 years. People die in wars. When Americans go join, and, indeed, lead enemy forces, and plan attacks on the United States - this document captures how and when they may be legally targeted.
Imagine a bank robber killing 5 people and holding 20 people hostage. As soon as he takes one step outside the police will shoot him on sight, WITHOUT any trial. It's the same thing basically.
They're targeting these guys for assasination for things they might do, or are suspected of doing in the past. It's not like they catch them in the actual act of committing terrorism.
So to satisfy your Strawman it would be the equivalent of finding a bank robber months after the robbery inside his house, and the police blowing it up with his family inside to get him. I don't think that would fly in any reasonable society
That's not really the same thing. A better analogy is this: the police have credible intelligence that this person is connected to a ring of known bank robbers, and that ring is planning a robbery, so therefore they have the authority to kill him.
A policeman's job is to enforce the law, not kill criminals. In this case that means arresting the bank robber so he can be brought to trial. If the bank robber comes out of the bank "guns blazing" then the police are certainly justified to shoot him as a matter of self-defense.
If, however, the bank robber steps out unarmed and is shot and killed, the family should have the right to bring a wrongful death suit (or something, IANAL) against the police officers in question.
1. That the US willingly kills it's own citizens without trial
or
2. That you found a way to justify it and you're OK with it.
What a crazy, crazy place.