People aren't uncomfortable with the president having the authority to unilaterally to kill essentially anyone at any time, it's just a blind hatred for the man himself. 
If my argument "convinced" you of this, then you are making a leap not based in any sort of logic to a conclusion (I would guess) you've already decided on. Obama critics can't have objections about the policy, it must be their personal hatred for the man. Oddly enough, though, Obama seems to be getting more support from the repukes on this (those who we've been saying for years have an obsessive hatred of the President), than he has been from his own party, so I'm not sure that theory is supported by reality.
In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[24] "The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port."
While Jefferson had the authority to act against the ships (and by extension, those manning them), it's not the same as being able to name a specific individual and issue an order for an extrajudicial killing on them with no oversight, no matter where they are or what they're doing.
My argument is not based specifically on one being an American citizen and has essentially nothing to do with the drones. It also has nothing to do with Obama. Frankly, I'm less uncomfortable with him doing it than some other presidents, but it's an authority ripe for abuse that, IMHO, no president should have.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read