Great! Then let the executive prove it to a court.
The point isn't that the prez killed someone. The point is that the prez did it not only without trial but without a shred of judicial oversight, completely denying both the father's due process rights and the son's.
The son, you say?
Yep. His 16 yr old son was killed in a separate strike. Somehow, that gets overlooked a lot.
I don't care how "out of reach" the guy is, the executive can make a case before a judge and jury. They had plenty of time for that against the father. They had tried and failed months earlier.
All anybody has to go on is the executive's say-so that this guy was a threat that needed killing. Sorry, that horse won't run.
I think you are mistaken.
He was added to the list for being a member of Al Qaeda. Congress approved considering Al Qaeda members as military enemies of the state and therefore, as military targets, they are not protected by the ban on assassinations, American citizen or not.
The executive really doesn't need to prove anything, well, they only need to prove he is a member of Al-Qaeda. He's on tv, youtube, Al-Jazeera and multiple other news sources stating he is in Al-Qaeda. Done... A confession, that's clearly not forced, is proof enough. Despite our newfound love of DNA and other types of evidence, a confession still meets the minimum requirement of proof.
Plus the list he was on was NOT an assassination list. It was a list of targets "approved for capturing or killing."
Essentially, he was wanted, dead or alive. That used to be the operating procedure in this country back when the government was smaller and the country was free like many people here wish it were again. People were to be brought in dead or alive.
Shrug...
He shouldn't have been in a war zone, actively fighting for a military enemy, in a foreign land. If American laws can be applied outside of the country, like in cases of child sex vacations (whatever they call that nastiness) then surely American law can be SUSPENDED outside of the country.
***
Article 3 - Section 3 of the Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
He clearly admitted treason on multiple media outlets. Congress, not the president, determined Al-Qaeda to be an "Enemy." Clearly, through his admission, he was "levying War, adhering to Enemies and giving Aid and Comfort."
Clearly, he confessed...
If your hang up is the in "Open Court" part I'd get over it. One could argue he voluntarily gave up, or "waived his right" to "open court" by hiding in a foreign land while continuing to levy war against us. Note the Constitution does NOT specify how one may or may not waive their right or who gets to decide if it has or hasn't been waived. Plus, clearly, open court was intended for the confession to be heard by everyone so that they knew it was not coerced. I'm pretty sure his antics on Youtube and Al-Jazeera meet this requirement.
Since we do have trials in absentia, absence clearly can be used as a waiver of the right to confront accusers or participate in their own defense. It follows then that perhaps absence can be used as a waiver for the entire trial.
Plus, since we know the constitution applies to ALL people within our legal jurisdiction and not just citizens it would seem that Constitutional rights are not attached to citizenship but rather to physical location. It would then follow that the Constitution only applies within our jurisdiction. This dbag was clearly out of the jurisdiction of the Constitution and therefore should not have been protected by it.
Of course, I'm no Constitutional scholar so...
