Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial.
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
> Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial
This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted.
This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France.
> As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage?
No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon.
Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
Didn't Noble himself invent dynamite or something?
Either way, if a US citizen is a legitimate target in an combat operation, it doesn't make sense to risk the lives of soldiers (US citizens) just so he can get a trial. In a perfect world,he would turn himself in and face trial to vindicate himself and his innocence but a drone strike kills that person and risks no more people that required.
Yes, you would prefer no killings take place, and I would also prefer to live in a utopia where there was no violence. I find our attitude obscene, that someone else on your behalf committed violence, minimizing to the absolute necessary amount and you pass judgement on them. Someone has to make the hard decisions that involve violence and war which are unfortunate realities, not inventions of some comic book villains. People have been warring since there were people. A peacemaker isn't someone that waves a magic wand and makes peace happen but someone who avoids violence unless it is required.
Citizen or not, if someone is providing material aid to a group that is intent on specifically targeting unsuspecting civilians, they're not criminals. They didn't break laws, they are engaging in combat. a domestic terrorist can be a criminal, so can a foreign terrorist working as non-state actor. But a terrorist group that's acting as quasi-state and waging military action is by definition a military target participating in war. Any such person must be treated as a combatant.
Truth is, Obama didn't commit enough justifiable violence,he could have done a lot more in syria and the levant, against Iran and elsewhere. but he was too peaceful and wanted to appease his voters. Ultimately, war is necessary at times, and it can even reduce the amount of actual death and suffering in the long run. Let's not forget that it was nuclear bombs and 50M+ people dying that ended the cycles of warfare in europe and most of the world for over half a century. Although people forgetting the lessons of that violence are repeating history again now. If there are aggressors intent on violence, the only way to achieve peace is through violence. You can't appease such people or debate with them (the allies tried that with hitler and learned their lesson).
My position is to refrain from criticizing too much any party that is responding to aggression or violence.
> This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism.
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.