>>I am not going to agree with you, but I will give you credit for making me really pause and think.
The only reason I restate this so adamantly over and over again is that I can imagine a scenario in which a President suspends an election due to specious circumstances, and then uses this exact same rationale to hunt down and destroy American “terrorists” with drone weapons.
If for nothing else, Obama should be impeached for this breach of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
When our President, no matter who he is, starts to eliminate dissenters on American soil with drones then I’ll be concerned. This guy, of very dubious citizenship, was targeted in a de-facto combat zone. By his actions he had denounced any American citizenship by his actions. He had fomented murder and mayhem on legitimate U.S. citizens and had totally removed himself from any means of proper U.S. jurisprudence without the MILITARY taking risks that would require many servicemen putting themselves at extreme risk. Exactly why should this happen? This man was not only a prior risk but also a future risk.
For a Republic to operate properly it requires that laws be applied with regard to the varying circumstances. That’s why, based on circumstances, you may have a murder, manslaughter, accidental or a self-defense verdict when someone dies. This man, on the face of it was, at least presumed guilty of conspiracy to commit murder based on the evidence provided. This is no way analogous to your scenario.
Had this defendant wanted to give himself up I believe that he should have been put up before a military tribunal, not a court of law. His actions were performed in a lawless combat zone. Calling him a citizen affords him rights that are not given to anyone else in that theater - you can’t kill him and you can’t capture him.