I think the problem is that we swear to protect and defend the Constitution. It has no allowance for "might" become a foreign combatant. But our intelligence community has to decide--do I pull the trigger now and violate the "defend" of my oath or do I violate the "protect" by allowing the person to escape. President Bill Clinton had OBL in his sights in 2000 at Tarnak and didn't pull the trigger because of potential collateral damage. Hindsight is 20-20, no?
So TP people lean toward "protect" by rigid legality. Obviously, our past two presidents lean toward "defend" by preemptive killing even though it violates international aviation law and the Constitution. I like what MM said about drawing his own line and living with it. I have drawn mine. I am personally glad we have different views represented here at WSGI Ihub town. Civilized people discuss and wrestle with these things IMO. IMO only civilized people should be allowed to conduct savagery. There is a tension in protect and defend IMO. Best regards, IndyJonesOhio