The moment you step outside the US, you can be killed by US a drone strike, or the CPB agent can simply shoot you if they wish.
It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.
Why didn't Obama do anything about it?
I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.
I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.
Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.
In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.
Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.
Responding to the above, Obama did do something: he presided over the first extrajudicial assassination of a US citizen by drone strike.
I fail to see the problem
Even if everyone has perfect intentions (doubtful), you need checks and balances to prevent human error.
This is for better or worse.
Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.
As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.
Well, the constitution is the rules and limits that apply to the US Government mainly (for the benefit of not only the US citizens).
However the Constitution is pretty much defined as the Law of the Land (Article VI https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... )
And if the case is as you describe then it seems it's a case for a federal prosecutor to make in Court.
> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...