If so, it should not be hard to get a judicial finding as such, authorizing use of force against said citizen, for which there was certainly time in this instance. That would be due process. This is not.
Janet Napoletano, chief of Homeland Security, has already issued a written opinion that conservative activists are "potential terrorists." How close to home does this have to get for you to get a clue?
It's the process that is at issue here, not the target.
“If so, it should not be hard to get a judicial finding as such, authorizing use of force against said citizen, for which there was certainly time in this instance. That would be due process. This is not.”
Nor was it intended to be due process. You do not kill enemy combatants for what they have done. You kill them because of who they are, enemies. Acts of war are different than civilian criminal actions. If you are in a battle and some mortar platoon drops a mortar on you, you to not go after that mortar platoon, you go after the enemy right in front of you. That mortar platoon was doing its duty as it saw it. They are not criminals they are enemies. This guy was not a criminal, he was an enemy member of a group who had declared war on the US. That his group was not a country is no more interesting that the CSA were not a recognized country either. They were at war with the US.
So conservatives must make sure that Congress contains people with the guts to rein in any president who tries to convert the power to wage war on an enemy that declared war on the country to the ability to constrain political opposition. That is the nature of government. It has great powers that in representative system we must elect representatives to keep it constrained. The US Constitution broadly limits government. It is up to us to elect representatives to more specifically limit government. If you don’t like this or think it is too hard, you are no better than Dims crying to the courts to get their unpopular agenda shoved down our throats.