benzdealeror2 -- kindly include links for any and all content taken from somewhere else, as remains the practice here -- and I believe NDAA uses 'belligerent' as a noun the meaning of which involves more than just some trash-talking
you know or should know the analysis is not that simple -- and that it's focused on what constitutes properly determining who is deemed a 'belligerent' against whom action may be taken -- a determination that is, or at least should be, in no way dependent upon or affected by whether or not the potential target is a U.S. citizen -- which is not to say that our Constitution isn't relevant, but is instead to say to that this is really primarily/more at the level of the law of war and of universal human rights
I share the concerns, understood in that light -- in practice, not so much concerned about this administration (which has, by the way and among other things, made clear that this sort of thing would/will never occur in this country, at least under their watch), pretty confident they could back up their decisions on a case-by-case basis -- the devil is in articulating definitional/limiting principles effectively, in stating in general terms a formal policy that limits mistakes and precludes abuses without foreclosing action that is appropriate and warranted in the given case, and in putting in place appropriate corresponding procedures -- the policy clearly needs to be better defined, and there clearly has to be much better transparency to/with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees so that they can in fact do their job of oversight -- as for potential targets who are U.S. citizens, perhaps the most cogent suggestion I've heard, one I do support, is that there should be some genuinely independent court/judicial branch review/need to approve of target designations, including concurrence in the assertion that capture is infeasible
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
