Bring charges and do whatever follows. If you're trying to make an arrest and he resists, shoot him. There at least you have the bare bones of a Constitutional action.
Or do you favor unconstituional action in defense of the Constitution?
Maybe we should just give Obama unlimited power to do whatever he wants, for whatever Constitution he wants?
In the present instance, we don't even know --- really --- why these people were targetted. I could be they were just the rivals of some bigger, badder terrorist group --- some other sect, some other faction --- that Obama just happens to favor. Why wouldn't that be the case? Because Obama says so? He kills: why wouldn't he lie?
RE: Bring charges and do whatever follows. If you’re trying to make an arrest and he resists, shoot him
Osama Bin Ladin has already been PUBLICLY CHARGED of being the number one terrorist we are after.
As for trying to make an arrest, we are not talking about arresting him in American soil ( he isn’t going to be here ).
So, given that he (theoretically) was born American, and given that we have publicly charged him to be a terrorist responsible for 9/11 and given that he PUBLICLY acknowledges his guilt and in fact, flaunts it, is it unconstitutional for us, after having found him to be in Pakistan, to go after him?
BTW, we have a legal process called LETTER OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, which in the past, given a lot of piracy overseas, gave permission for privateers to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) our borders.
It is entirely in keeping with the constitution to issue such a letter should another American be a top Al Qaeda leader.
RE: You’ve already specified, in your theoretical, that in this case he’d be a U.S. Citizen. As such, he’d be covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, by definition.
well, lets ask ourselves another question -— were the confederates during the Civil war considered American Citizens covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment?
If so, did Lincoln bring charges against them one by one before shooting them to death?
If not, then wasn’t Lincoln violating the Constitution?
If your response is -— That was different because we were at war then -— then why is it different now? we are at war with Al Qaeda.
RE: You’ve already specified, in your theoretical, that in this case he’d be a U.S. Citizen. As such, he’d be covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, by definition.
well, lets ask ourselves another question -— were the confederates during the Civil war considered American Citizens covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment?
If so, did Lincoln bring charges against them one by one before shooting them to death?
If not, then wasn’t Lincoln violating the Constitution?
If your response is -— That was different because we were at war then -— then why is it different now? we are at war with Al Qaeda.