5 ms·
That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of r
by pstack 13y ago
That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the government as to how they may or may not act).
The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided.
Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is another - and that is what has happened, so far.
Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country (or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US, apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.
- tikhonj 13y agoOkay, let's agree with your premise. Then why is it only absurd in the case of US citizens? After all, the constitution unequivocally applies to everyone in the US. Even me! So why should the fact that somebody is far away change any of that?
- wiredfool 13y agoIt's not just citizens. 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 offence 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.