> It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process, nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen.
Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters.
Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.
Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters.
Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.