A few things, all of which I shouldn’t be surprised but kinda am Krauthammer elided:
1). What “war” is he talking about? Let’s assume Iraq and Afghanistan were duly declared, even if they weren’t. Does another, bigger “war on terror” actually exist? I mean, moreso than, say, the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty; is it real enough to excuse summary assassination? Seems to me rather elastic policy to say we can bomb anyone, anywhere in the world no matter their legal status and without regard to due process. Wars of endless size, scope, and duration leave me uneasy.
2). Is the standard really that we can kill those who “take up arms”? Even in a metaphorical sense, are we sure that those blown up by robots had taken positive action? Or are they dead because we thought maybe they’ll do something bad eventually? I have no way to tell.
Nineteen eighty-four was almost thirty years ago: "Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
Orwell recognized the convenience to a tyrannical government of always having an enemy whose existence justifies any means to an end that will never be reached.
We are well on the way to becoming the largest lynch mob in history. As with lynchings, it is the seriousness of the charges which justifies the elimination of due process.