The question in effect becomes — which do you prefer, 200 people dead or 3000 people dead?
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I don’t think the constitution gives you a guide to this.
Something beyond that document has to prevail.
And what about an American citizen who is a member of a terrorist cell actively plotting against the U.S. by planning the hijacking? Who happens to be holed up in a rural compound? Doesn't the question become isn't it preferable to save the 200, and by extension the thousands of other lives, by taking out the one through whatever means are at hand?
My point in all this is that it can't be as neatly black and white as Senator Paul would have it. Yes, we have due process and rule of law. Yes, that is the preferable course to follow. But if someone has crossed the line and is actively working against this country then stopping them from attacking us should be a priority. If we can accept the president ordering the death of hundreds of citizens through the use of a Sidewinder missile if there is no other way to prevent a greater tragedy, then why do we flinch at the idea of him ordering the death of one citizen through use of a Hellfire missile if there is no other way of stopping a greater tragedy?