Four NOT Two Americans Were Killed In Drone Strikes

[metalbot]

78. I'm slightly confused

You argue:

"Enemy combatants actively engaged in armed hostilities in the theater of combat have zero constitutional rights until they leave the hostilities by choice or by capture."

Is the "theater of combat" relevant to that statement if you then further argue that "combatants decide where the theater of combat is"? It feels like you are arguing "We can kill you if you are in a theater of combat, and wherever you are is by definition a theater of combat".

"Being a terrorist waging war on the US is a very dangerous job."

I'm actually not arguing with the notion that we should be killing bad people (via drone or whatever means), not am I arguing that Adam Gadahn was not a terrorist. What I'm arguing with is the notion that it is really legal under our current system of laws. If our activities in Pakistan are legal, then what else would be legal under the same "rules"? The fair acknowledgement is probably "what we're doing isn't really legal, but we're going to do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do". That at least starts the dialog about codifying what it is that we and aren't willing to do as a nation, rather than disguising it under our current legal framework.