JMM thank you for the welcome back, been spending more time away then home and although not posting have continued to sneak in some reading.

I have kept myself abreast of the targeting of US citizens since the Al-Awlaki strike in 2011. In all honesty, I remain torn on the issue as executed today, simply due to my personal beliefs as a US citizen. I understand the need to counter and eliminate targets, which threaten the nation and/or the nation's interests. I also understand the abuses of power throughout history and thus my dilemma regarding the current processes. Hopefully, some of the legal professionals here within the SWC can correct the errors in my ways.

I see the issue regarding the targeting of US citizens as a simple solution handled through the judicial system with a change in trials in absentia. As I understand the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to The United States Constitution guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present at his own trial. In 1993, The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be tried in absentia if he is not present at the beginning of the trial. While the constitutionality of this legal practice is open to debate, trial in absentia is permitted under certain circumstances. The defendant has the right to waive his right to be present at his own trial and a defendant can be ejected from the courtroom for continuing to participate in disruptive behavior. A defendant can give his written consent for a trial involving a misdemeanor to continue in his absence.

Understanding the limitations concerning trials in absentia and the following causes for loss of US citizenship.

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7. Conviction for an act of treason.

In my simplistic view of the issue, the simple solution is to allow the US citizen the ability to defend themselves in court. If the individual does not appear for the trial, hold the trial in absentia to determine if the individual should be stripped of their US citizenship. If the court finds sufficient evidence to remove the individual's citizenship status, then the individual can be lethally targeted. Who knows, maybe the behind closed doors justification resemble something akin to this thought process. This might just be this "Merican's way of justifying the targeting.

I cannot help but notice how terrorism has become the new McCarthyism, might have to start a thread on the resemblance when I have time to do my due research.