But you are right, a police officer would have shot him had he caught Ted in the act and no one would think badly of it.
I suppose this is the difference. If the person being struck by a drone actually had a machine gun and was using it when he was struck than yes... a crime was being stopped with lethal force. If he is at home asleep and you send a drone to kill him at a time he is not engaged in the act maybe you are veering into extra-judicial execution. And that is why this is problematic.
Not if they are an imminent threat.
to the corrupted establishment.
Rather, the Congress themselves have authorized the use of military force explicitly, both in Afghanistan (and against Al Qaeda and associated movements generally) and in Iraq.
But the military is only a single (albeit important) branch of the government, whereas a declaration of war would encompass a vast accumulation of government power to the Executive across a wide range of the branches of government.
There is a reason Congress has not declared war (even assuming one could literally declare war on "terrorism"): It would grant the President powers far in excess of that which Congress wishes.
So in fact you have it completely opposite; Congress refuses to declare war because refusing this declaration constrains the power of the President.
If they are not an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. arrest, extradition, trial, evidence, lawyers, etc).
If they are an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. it's ok to shoot and kill someone who is trying to light your house on fire - it should be ok to drone them too).
The whole citizen/noncitizen debate was a rhetorical construct created by Rand Paul to show the moral outrage that is droning someone who is not an imminent threat.