It may be good to see this in the New York Times. But others (like, for example, Glenn Greenwald, both at salon.com and at guardian.co.uk) have made this point many, many, many times. And at least Greenwald I think would agree that one should strike one word from that headline. To be exempt from execution, at the sole discretion of the U.S. president, just because one happens to hold a U.S. passport, is still not a desirable position to be in.
Interestingly, the practice is not obviously unconstitutional. As American citizens they almost certainly have due process rights, but the question of "what process is due" when U.S. soldiers have been trying to hunt you in Afghanistan for years is not a quick and easy one. "Due process" does not always require a trial, though in cases where the deprivation is life it almost always has meant that.
I wonder how you even get a test case for this. Who has standing to sue?
"... release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. "
I see no believable indication that any such documents even exist.
