Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.
That said, even if we some day manage to summon political will to regulate the use of violence by our government more strongly, violence of the threat thereof is an essential part of relations between human polities - framing it as uncivilized will not change that.
I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago, when your president allowed it. I may be mistaken, as I'm not from the US and so not immersed in the culture on a daily basis.
If that's true, I would say that the current development is in the opposite direction of more restraint.
U.S. citizens were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is believed that some of the ones that went to fight for the Nazis were also killed by American soldiers on the battlefield.
The president who "allowed it" (how can I put this very tactfully) was likewise, as you put it, not so immersed in the culture on a daily basis (to wit, raised outside the US) - exemplified with Anwar Awl Alaki and Benghazi.
(Am trying to handle a hot topic delicately, pointing out differences.)
Sadly, I suspect the wind will blow the other way on this one.
It is the difference between supporting a mission (even one that many may disagree with), and simply being an organization that exists to continue itself.
America is the only civilized country where the state sanctioned murder of foreign nationals is called an execution. Principles are principles and they extend to all human beings regardless of race or nationality.
Shame on America.
These are killers with an agenda. It is quite literally kill or be killed.
They didn't. That is the issue.
Even a secret in-absentia trial with an appointed defender unable to communicate with the person they are defending would be better than the current system. It would still be a farce, but it would be vastly better.
The current system is state sanctioned murder. Nothing less.
That none of the people in the chain of command is on trial for murder says all we need to know about the callousness of the US government.
You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone?
An American citizen who open admits committing a crime gets more due process than a harmless child in some third world country. Do American military men ever have to produce evidence before killing children, as in www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0?
Why would the US kill these people if they are not a threat? What would the motive be?
As for your request:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Muhammad_Wazir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitham_al-Yemeni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_al-Somali
and on and on and on...these are not harmless children.
>You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone?
No, not alone. There needs to be oversight (and I believe there is) it just doesn't need to be public.
Or because some analyst needed to prove he is fast worker and decided to check "terrorist" box in some internal software. Or because boss decided give bonuses for catch terrorists and someone wanted a new car. The system with no independent oversight will end up abused in millions of ways, most often by people not caring about doing it right.
Heck, even real world cops make tons of mistakes or arrest people just to fill arrested bodies quotas and they do have judges to check upon them, at least in theory.
Or, most dangerously, because that person is outspoken politically dangerous person, not a terrorists and not planning anything, but did actually met with some terrorist twice. Say, muslim active in politics just about to do something uncomfortable for administration.