“Now, somebody on this thread has pointed out that according to the US Code, serving in a foreign military is de facto renunciation of one’s citizenship... OK, I can also accept that, I guess, but the problem we come back to is — who gets to decide? Does Barack 0bama get to decide that members, posters, or financial contributors to FRee Republic have de facto renounced their American citizenship?”
Oh, come on, get serious. Had he been living in New Jersey, then yes he should have been arrested and charged. But he was living in Yemen for crying out loud. You can’t see the difference? For starters, we don’t have police authority in Yemen, and even if we did, it would be a very risky arrest. Why should our guys have to risk their lives in a foriegn country to avoid killing this precious pile of excrement?
First: We've taken terrorists alive all over the world. Second: there's a Constitutionally approved way to deal in countries where we have no police authority; it's called a Letter of Marque. Third: as I said, IF a FISA Court had issued an indictment and a warrant, I'd have had no problem with killing him when he refused to surrender to US protection. That refusal could have been implicit simply in his remaining a fugitive. There is a FISA ruling in his case, but it doesn't go far enough. The fact that there was a FISA opinion concerning him should tell you that the DOJ was not completely happy with the fact of killing him -- even outside of New Jersey.
The fact that we keep prisoners outside of US jurisdiction who are not American citizens -- precisely because we do not want them to fall under the heading of "US Persons" should tell you that US Constitutional protections are taken seriously, even by nominally conservative Presidents.
The Constitution isn't a technicality, and this is not a fine point. You want to grant the President this kind of power, OK. The Founders didn't. And I don't either.