Dude how thick is your head or are you blind? Perhaps try reading what I say.....
Wtf.
Well, see, I did write that in direct response to your somewhat-insulting post (Which at least relieves me of any further burden to be tactful in addressing your ill-informed and unsupported Constitutional opinions). In fact that's why I quoted it in my response, because what you wrote was so damn' silly that a response wouldn't be all that easy to understand without seeing the reference (I.e. your post), particularly with wide stretches of your furball with MSB in between. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the scope or implications of what you yourself write, and trying to point out the logic flaws in it is a waste of effort since you aren't exactly demonstrating a 'Gifted and talented' potential here.
Bush and Rumsfeld came up with the phrase "Global War on Terror." There is inherent in that turn of phrase the idea that there exists a global state of war, waged by the US against a globally-distributed network of pan-national terrorists, and in turn by those terrorists against us. There is absolutely nothing in the phrase, or the concept behind it, which precludes US citizens from being on the side of the terrorists and thus at war with the US, or limits the location of the terrorists to only non-CONUS locations for their operations.
As MSB points out, and as those with any sophistication in the subject are well aware, there is indeed a secretive and highly-particularized finding process that has to be gone through to target any individuals for assassination, arising out of certain past abuses under Presidents of both parties between say, oh, about the end of WWII and the mid-1980s.
One person, I don't recall if it was you, noted upthread that it is the job of the Legislative Branch to wage war, which is completely mistaken. It is in fact the exclusive domain of the Executive, the power of the Legislative Branch is to declare war, raise armies and navies (And by interpretation, air forces and any other arms necessary) and provide for them, which essentially gives them the power of the purse to rein in the Executive, but by no means to dictate their use short of mustering a veto-proof majority to impose a statutory prohibition on the Executive.
