The parent is probably referring to the drone strike in Yemen that successfully killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. Here the issue isn't his death, but the process leading to it.

The circumstances surrounding al-Awlaki's death might be legally justifiable - apparently there's a 50-page DoJ memorandum arguing that it was. I'm certain the 'wartime enemy' argument was used.

However, the public will never know if the death of al-Awlaki was justifiable, because that memorandum is secret. The executive order that led to al-Awlaki's death is secret - the Obama administration is refusing to discuss any US involvement. The evidence that informed the executive order leading to al-Awlaki's death is secret.

I'm not a naïf. I'm prepared to concede that under certain quite rare and specific circumstances, it might be justifiable for the US government to kill a US citizen without full due process - I'd choose that, say, over a nuke going off in Manhattan. But there must be some judicial oversight.

At the moment, we have no idea how many US citizens the president has ordered killed - and because the details behind these are 'state secrets', normal checks and balances against the abuse of power do not apply.

I've got no sympathy for al-Awlaki, but this is as good a definition of tyranny as any.