Ordering the assassination of an American citizen not caught in the act of doing something illegal is illegal and Obama should be prosecuted for that. But his justification was that it was for national security, and as you say, some people think that's a fine justification. If his justification were that he didn't like the cut of his jib, then you'd be against it I assume.

As things lie now, rationale and justification don't matter in determining whether something is prosecutable or not, and that's scary, to me at least.

EDIT: Also, did you see my question from an earlier post:

>> One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.

> Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't.

So this may surprise you but the government of the United States is naturally immune from any case where it kills you or harms you in any way.

Congress has consented to being liable because it thinks that's nice, but it withdraws consent whenever it wants. The entirety of the idea of 'suing' or 'prosecuting' the government is something that only happens with the governments consent and they regularly withdraw it if it's upsetting the them

* You cannot sue because the federal government and all state governments are immune from all civil suits naturally. Congress has consented to be sued because it thinks that that's a nice approach, but it can always choose to not be sued if it wanted to