We’re not targeting Yemen. We’re targeting people in Yemen with the permission of the government. That’s well within the realm of authority given by the AUMF. If it were England, we wouldn’t need to do this ourselves. It’s just not a good analogy.
See above.
Probably.
Yeah. 
My analogies always stink.
And to that end, I think there was a long break in drone strikes on Yemen (ending with the shot at al-Awlaki) because Saleh didn’t want any more of them due to his precarious hold on power.
Right. I mean, why stop now? That’s worked out so well over the last nine years.
I guess. However obviously that principle was not very important since the UK invaded a neutral country during the war. Do you agree/disagree that is a more prominent and telling statement about the view on treatment of the neutral parties was during WWII than an incident involving a lone naval vessel–and one in which the British holding back may have been about tactical deployment more than political concerns.
In any case, I already said I have no idea what the Hague requirements are. But if you note how Iceland was treated in WWII you will see that if strict respect for neutral parties is a major underpinning of Hague obligations it was not observed during WWII. This is also a significant sidetrack from the issue of how appropriate the targeting of al-Awlaki would be vis-a-vis his civil rights. Even if we violated international law to kill him it wouldn’t be a violation of his civil rights but it may be a violation of treaty obligations. American civil rights are not based upon treaty obligations.