Comment Re:Military justification (Score 1) 371
No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
It's the same sort of thing where it's not actually an execution when a police officer shoots a suspect who's shooting at him. In this case you have an opposing military leader, who happens to also be a US Citizen, assisting in planning, fundraising, coordinating, and other leadership roles. It can pretty much be assumed that if he's at all effective in his role that plans that harm the USA(and innocent civilians) will be coming out of him on a routine basis. Thus, always an imminent threat.
No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent
I think you mean imminent(IE 'Soon') and not 'eminent' IE readily perceived, which in this case would amount to 'obvious'. Then again, both work. 'they believed it to be eminent that plan execution was imminent.'
The proof would be in the redacted segments because they were obtained from classified sources. Even without those sources I believe there was enough public evidence to consider him a key leader of a hostile force that the DoD has been directed to take military action against* under the rules of war - which are quite different things than the rules of criminal law. Basically you only need sufficient evidence in order to consider them likely supporting the opposing war effort in order to target them. The amount of consideration also has to take time available to make the decision - a grunt on the ground isn't held to the same standard as a mission planner back on base. But at least he has first hand observations...
*Can't we just declare war on them?