The Implications of Drone Targeted Killings

Senator Durbin: The duty of the President of the United States is to defend the US from foreign threat within the framework set by a nation that is both democratic and where the rule of law prevails. The authority of the President is rooted in our constitution set by our Founders over two centuries ago.
Todays subject: Drone attacks are deployed by our military far more frequently   than those of traditional tactics of war in recent years.   The administration has attempted to ground its drone policy in statute. What is the statutory and constitutional protections of US citizens when targeted overseas and what is the legal definition of a combatant?

Senator Cruz: Drones are technology and can be used potentially for both good and ill. The issue is mover the scope of federal power in relation to drone strikes amongst many other related issues. Federal overreach was at the root of Senator Paul's filibuster with which he was honored to take part in. Senator Cruz then repeats the same question that he posted two monthes prior to US Attorney-General Eric Holder: If a U.S. citizen whom the administration strongly believes to be a terrorist threat is sitting quietly at a cafe in the United States– not posing an imminent threat of death or bodily harm– does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?
The authority of the federal government and the constitution should not be partisan issue. The thirteen hour fillbuster saw the American people fixated on C-Span; a first for the American people I'm sure (laughter). The very next day Attorney-General Holder finally gave a real reply to both Senator Paul and himself.
: Witness are Sworn In

+General Cartwright: Served 40 years in the Marine Corp and retired in 2011 and was also Commander of the US Strategic Command.
Are we to continue with the era of remotely directed armed flight vehicle?
Three Goals in Relation to Drone Targeted Killings:
1.) Defeat Terrorists and the organizations financing them.