So it must be blindly assumed that a political apointee makes a correct application of use of force, you may feel that is acceptable, I for one will never accept this premise.
The political apointee doesn't make the decision to act on anything.
Nothing in that white paper even hints at any protocol for application of use of force.
That's not the purpose of a white paper. A white paper explains or justifies a policy. It isn't an SOP.
It doesn't even fricking state who or what agency has the authority to order a fricking hit on an American.
For the type of operation in question, that "agency" would be the National Command Authority--the president (in most cases) or the SECDEF (in some delegated cases). In this case, it's the president. The appointees that you guys are fretting about are advisors who make a judgement and advise. They don't have military command authority (except the SECDEF).
If you aren't nervous about that then you have way too fricking much faith in a government that yesterday you claimed has abused civil rights more than our European brethren.
I think we're reading the situation differently. I don't think there's anything scary about treating a member of a foreign hostile force as a belligerent. It's not new. As I said, if he were standing across from me aiming his musket, I wouldn't run over and try to arrest him. I'd drop his ass. If he were drawing up plans in the enemy tent, and I had a sniper rifle that could reach him, and there was no way for me to get through the camp's defenses to capture him, I'd drop his ass. Simple.