If the precedent was set, then why was Johnny Taliban prosecuted in US court? No, I don’t think what you describe is accurate. A precedent certainly was set under Bush the Younger that enemy noncombatants we catch on the battlefield do not deserve Geneva protection and can be held indefinitely. But I’m not aware of assassination without due process for US citizens overseas with or without them taking up arms or being in a combat zone.
Could be so, but had it I’d think our ears would still be bleeding from the bloody murder screamed by the left.
The precedent was set with Jose Padilla. A U.S. citizen who was held for almost four years without access to lawyers or the courts, subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, and who basically was denied his Constitutional protections. Why? Because he was a known Taliban operative who was actively engaged in planning acts of terror against innocent U.S. citizens. And because of that the administation argued that he was an enemy combattant and was not entitled to due process protections. And they were right. Citizenship ceases to become a factor when the individual is warring against the United States. They then become a target, just like any other enemy soldier or leader. And in war you win by killing more of the enemy than you lose, and killing them before they have a chance to kill you. Any U.S. citizen working for al Qaida accepts the risks that that involves. And if those risks include having a drone put a missile through your window, without a warrant, without access to legal counsel first, without due process, then so be it.