What is post-Westphalian war?

Eric links below to Glenn Greenwald on the killing-by-drone (I'm choosing a deliberately neutral term here, neither "assassination" nor "result of a military operation") of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. There were no legal proceedings against al-Awlaki; from what I can gather, the US government is claiming it doesn't need that 1) because loosely speaking, we are are in state of war; or 2) more technically, because of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of September 18, 2001. 

A point of philosophical interest, I think, is the slippage between 1 and 2 above. I'm going to take my own understanding of these issues, naive as it is, as the basis of this discussion, as part of the issue is how to sell non-judicial drone killing to the "general public."  

Here's the key: the Treaty of Westphalia gives nation-states sovereignty over the population within their borders. So, to abide by the principles laid out in the Treaty -- principles which serve as the basis for evolved international law / just war theory -- killings by agents of one nation-state within the borders of another can only be done after a declaration of war by one of the states. IOW, war is a relation between states.

But the AUMF (section 2.a) expands the legitimate targets of military force beyond nations to "organizations, or persons": 

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That's the key I think: the AUMF puts us explicitly in a post-Westphalian paradigm, as long at the POTUS can establish a link to the 9/11 attacks. Thus we can now declare war (in the colloquial sense of authorize the use of military force) not just against states, but against "organization, or persons." In other words, the President need not adhere to the 6th Amendment requirement for a "speedy and public trial," if he can fit his actions under the AUMF umbrella.

Of course, the President (now Obama, on Jan 20, 2013, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Jeb Bush?) would only need to make the case that the AUMF justifies a specific instance of drone-killing if called to do so, but who will force that justification to be made? The Supreme Court? The Congress? Don't make me laugh; or as the saying goes, "stop it, you're killing me."