I believe there was due process and precedent is on my side...not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court.
Your argument is technically conceivable, but amounts to a 'Hail-Mary' in terms of plausibility. It's so unlikely that it attracts mostly 'true-believers' in the same way that conspiracy theories do. Your argument was tried in many courts and legislatures in the Schiavo case, and it lost. You're swimming upstream trying to convince me you are wiser than all of the individuals and entities who rejected it.
Read the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Depriving a person of their life, with or without due process, IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT and capital punishment REQUIRES a grand jury indictment.
Your argument was tried in many courts and legislatures in the Schiavo case, and it lost. You're swimming upstream trying to convince me you are wiser than all of the individuals and entities who rejected it.
You and your liberaltarian ilk would probably be running around talking about how "wise" decisions like the Dred Scott Decision, Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell were if they hadn't been overturned.
You are entirely unwilling to accept that in clear cases of right and wrong, courts do not always make the right decisions and in so doing you exhibit incredible hubris and hypocrisy.
I find it disturbingly ironic that in another major court case of 2005, Kelo v. City of New London, NONE of the liberaltarians were talking about how "wise" the Supreme Court was in its decision. This demonstrates one thing and that is that you only consider a court decision "wise" when it agrees with your agenda and in Terri's case, your bloodlust.