Predator--easy solution to difficult problems?

During a recent interview Monday, the President found himself talking about the CIA's "secret" drone campaign in Pakistan. It was startling because it represented the first time the government has openly acknowledged operations, while the rest of the world had already assumed we were the nation behind it.

Active drone campaign over a sovereign nation. That's pretty brazen--OK, got it.

However, this admission has opened the door for other questions pertaining to our use of drones, particularly their use against American citizens in foreign countries. Citizens who presumably are avowed enemies of the United States and actively pursuing terrorist-like activities against it, a' la Anwar Awlaki in Yemen.

The LA Times and Mother Jones are two of the outlets recently asking the question if our use of drones is legal in this context. Can drones be used to kill American citizens without the benefit of a trial? And if so, what is the President's rationale for doing so?

I think what's really happened is the POTUS let one slip. I don't think he really meant to go down that road, and he got to talking too much about the drone campaign. Why do I say that? Becasue of Jay Carney's reaction to the press later that day when he was asked again about the program. From the LA Times:

Nevertheless, on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to discuss the drone program, withholding comment on "supposed covert programs."

Whoops!

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the use of drones in this matter. If there is a clear rationale, I would certainly like to hear more about it. I mean, it's pretty clear that Awlaki is an instigator behind terrorist activities, most notably the Ft. Hood shooting spree by Army Major Hasan (curse be upon him). I'm no military law expert, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a directly active participant in warfare in order to be a legal combatant. Generals sitting in bunkers planning the next operation are a legal target, yet they are not directly involved in pulling a trigger, after all. I see Awlaki as that general, American citizen or not.

Then again, I'm not particularly happy with the apparent arbitrary way in which the President, not a minion, but the President makes the decision to use lethal force vis-a-vis a drone-fired missile, to kill an American citizen.

But again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, either; just a guy with questions.

What do you think? Is this use of drones legal? Is this use of drones against Americans legal? Is it moral?