The law in Awlaki's case is debatable because of the contradictions in law in this "war" and arguments about what constitutes the "battlefield" these days. But nobody claims that suburban Georgia is the same "battlefield" as the badlands of the deserts of northern Yemen. I think many of the overarching claims under Bush about the need for extraordinary executive powers were bogus and dangerous. But it's clearly the case that, as AG said elsewhere, the state takes the life of citizens every day without indictments or judges or juries making a ruling.
I don't know the details of Awlaki's case. Maybe there was a secret grand jury indictment. Or maybe there's some applicable law that wasn't followed. I dunno. But I don't see his death, or the 2002 death of Kamal Derwish, is a sign that the black helicopters are going to shoot me or my neighbors. I don't buy the slippery-slope argument here or in any other case I can think of.
At some point, one has to decide whether others can be trusted. If you don't trust the reporting on Awlaki's activities, why would you trust the reporting about any indictment or trial? Of course, the government can feed lies to reporters. But in this case, it seems unlikely that Awlaki was somehow framed. Why would the courts be part of such a conspiracy?
Those with sufficient interest can dig up Awlaki's web site and writings themselves - I don't have that interest.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.