Edit: The $\alpha < 0$ case is answered by @Jeff in another answer. That answer works for $\alpha \geq 0$ also.
In the $C^1$ case here is a proof when $\alpha \geq 0$:
By assumption
$$
\begin{split}
u_1'(x) + \alpha u_1(x) - f(x) &\geq 0 \\
u_2'(x) + \alpha u_2(x) - f(x) &\leq 0
\end{split}
$$
and
$$
u_2(0) \leq u_1(0).
$$
Now we show that for any $M > 0$, $u_2 \leq u_1$ for $x \in [0, M]$. By continuity we may choose $x_0 \in [0, M]$ such that
$$
u_1(x_0) - u_2(x_0) \leq u_1(x) - u_2(x)
$$
for all $x_0 \in [0, M]$. In fact, $u_1, u_2$ need not be continuous - $u_1$ need only be lower semi-continuous and $u_2$ need only be upper semi-continuous.
So we just need to show that $u_1(x_0) - u_2(x_0) \geq 0$. If $x_0 = 0$, then we're done. So suppose $x_0 \in (0, M]$. Then we have (allowing for the possibility $x_0 = M$:
$$
u_1'(x_0) - u_2'(x_0) \leq 0.
$$
Now just use this inequality along the assumptions:
$$
u_2'(x_0) + \alpha u_2(x_0) - f(x_0) \leq 0 \leq u_1'(x_0) + \alpha u_2(x_0) - f(x_0) \leq u_2'(x_0) + \alpha u_2(x_0) - f(x_0).
$$
Cancelling we then have
$$
\alpha u_2(x_0) \leq \alpha u_1(x_0)
$$
which implies the desired conclusion $u_1(x_0) - u_2(x_0) \geq 0$ provided $\alpha \geq 0$.
EDIT The following is not a counterexample!
EDIT: Counterexample when $\alpha < 0$.
Take $\alpha = -1$ and $f \equiv 0$. Then the equation is
$$
u' - u = 0.
$$
Let $u_1(x) = 0$ and $u_2(x) = -\tfrac{1}{2} x + x^2$. Then you can easily check that $u_1(0) = u_2(0) = 0$, $u_1$ is a supersolution, and $u_2$ is a subsolution. But for large $x$, $u_2(x) > 0 = u_1(x)$.
To proceed in the viscosity case, the notes referred to in the comments seem to suggest that one can do a quadratic regularitaztion, considering the function
$$
w(x, y) = u_1(x) - u_2(y) + C (x-y)^2
$$
but I have not checked the details.