Again, doesn't do anything in regard to US citizens. The key to this is it is now under the purview of the President's Authority to detain people, which previously was not the case.

US citizens are still protected by due process.

Tell that to the American citizen that Obama ordered the assassnation of.  

Which is the point.  The law codifies what is essentially Obama's opinion on what does and doesn't count as due process.

For another example using the other aisle.  If this happened during the Bush presidency with this wording, but was a bill on torture.  The bill would codify in law, Bush's stance that waterboarding is not torture.

LMFAO, Anwar al-awlaki? He was Al Queda, US citizen or not. That is a known terrorist. Justice was served. If you don't want to be killed, don't be or associate with terrorists. Pretty simple.

So as long as due-process is inconvenient, and the government says someone has done something, then there is no reason to give someone a fair trial before you kill them?

Are you telling me Al Queda isn't a terrorist group?

If you're the getaway driver for a home invasion robbery and your accomplice(s) end up killing the home owners, you (the getaway driver) are complicit and equally as guilty.

Same principle here.

So if someone is accused of being a getaway driver does that mean they are no longer entitled to due-process? Can we just get rid of these pesky trials for serious crimes and start shooting suspected criminals in the street?

Again, Al Queda is a known terrorist group. No trial necessary. If the getaway driver were associated with Al Queda, you might have a point. As it stands currently, you do not.

Since it is inconvenient to arrest gang members in Detroit does that mean the government has free reign to kill gang members?

What do you not understand about terrorism? Gang members in detroit are not terrorists. 

In what way are gang members different enough from terrorists to invalidate a person's rights?