http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
...
(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If an American citizen is fighting alongside our enemies in a war authorized by Congress, and they are killed in the course of that war, what is at issue? Are they not traitors, enemy collaborators, and illegal combatants in a war against the United States? If so, why is their "citizenship" worthy of protection?
Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?
There is no issue in killing an American traitor fighting with the enemy in a declared war. That is not equivalent to a government issuing an order for a targeted killing of an American citizen not engaged in active battle in a foreign country.
You do understand the distinction? I made that distinction when I posted. Please be more careful.
Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?
Not a bit. Are you being inconsistent with regard to the distinction vis a vis the Constitution? Absolutely.