Justify a ‘hit list’

I would have to tend to agree with this argument. I don’t find it constitutional that the government is able to Justify a "hit list  on a United States citizen without going through the courts. We have to go through the court system when one is put on trial for a crime and go through the process to convict and serve punishment so why would this be any different. This is a touchy subject though. Being that Anwar Awlaki who is an agent for Al Qaeda makes him our enemy. And with our soldiers at war we don’t have to go through the courts to shoot and kill the enemy. So my question is, do we have to go through the same court process if they are not a U.S. citizen and are on U.S soil?

“Awlaki's father asks the court to rule that his son can't be killed outside armed conflict "unless he is found to present a concrete, specific and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat."

I do believe as is stated that the case will be thrown out because in my opinion his father has no legal right to even submit such a thing when his Son, who is a U.S.citizen and is of age, has access to our courts.

We know he’s a threat and is in bed with the enemy but, the fact is he is a U.S citizen just as all the rapist and murderers are and we still have to go through the same judicial process with them.