> "I don't see how it's not OK on due process grounds, but only if the guy is a US citizen."
I agree with you that it's very strange and tribalistic to think that Americans have "more rights" than any other person. If we think that a US citizen should receive due process before being killed or imprisoned indefinitely (as in Guantanamo) without evidence, so should other people. Unfortunately, countries generally protect citizens and selectively ignore the rights of foreigners.
> "Suppose that some terrorist group is preparing an attack somewhere - are you supposed to send special forces after them with a death sentence from some court in their pocket?"
Here I think you're trying to use a rare occurrence, for which we already make exceptions, to argue against the rule. Posing an imminent threat changes the rules. If you are about to shoot someone or bomb a building, you don't get a trial.
It'd be nice to have some visibility into when and where it was determined that someone was an imminent threat and whether we check that they actually were, but this letter is more about how the administration justified the killing of citizens that were not, so far as we know, imminent threats. We don't know at this point whether the administration is stretching the meaning of "imminent," whether they had info they're not sharing with us, or if they just chose to execute someone who was on the wrong team.
I agree with you that it's very strange and tribalistic to think that Americans have "more rights" than any other person. If we think that a US citizen should receive due process before being killed or imprisoned indefinitely (as in Guantanamo) without evidence, so should other people. Unfortunately, countries generally protect citizens and selectively ignore the rights of foreigners.
> "Suppose that some terrorist group is preparing an attack somewhere - are you supposed to send special forces after them with a death sentence from some court in their pocket?"
Here I think you're trying to use a rare occurrence, for which we already make exceptions, to argue against the rule. Posing an imminent threat changes the rules. If you are about to shoot someone or bomb a building, you don't get a trial.
It'd be nice to have some visibility into when and where it was determined that someone was an imminent threat and whether we check that they actually were, but this letter is more about how the administration justified the killing of citizens that were not, so far as we know, imminent threats. We don't know at this point whether the administration is stretching the meaning of "imminent," whether they had info they're not sharing with us, or if they just chose to execute someone who was on the wrong team.