thank you. you made my point.
let me sum up my position and then i'll be done with this, i think.
-we have a constitution and it is the law of the land.
-that constitution guarantees certain rights and protections for citizens....not just good citizens.
-presidents have ignored the constitution before, Lincoln for instance, but i don't think this can be compared to something like the Emaciation Proclamation.
-this guy was a bad guy and needed to be dead.
-if the government had enough to go after him, why no warrant, indictment, revocation of citizenship, etc?
-why the public declaration that we were going to kill him, then public credit for doing so?
-are we now to accept that it is ok for the president to publicly ignore the constitution and do as he pleases by decree?
-do we now accept that the president holds the power to execute, without due process, American citizens?
-how was this decision made?
-what constitutes a citizen enemy?
-who was involved in this decision?
see, i don't care about this guy. glad he's gone. i do care about the precedent set by this action. i care that we can't see the future, so we can't know how this will be used again, either by this president or another. our laws either mean something or they don't. maybe we should be thinking about that?