The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[jmm99]

of a "US citizen [1] combatant AQ member [2] who has expatriated himself". That uses the simple factual test for Expatriation:

An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence. The word comes from the Latin terms ex ("out of") and patria ("country, fatherland").

thereby avoiding the legal quagmires of Renunciation of citizenship and Denaturalization.

Hackworth (who had a number of policy viewpoints the same or similar to mine) was an expat to AUS for a decade. He was not a combatant in an armed force at war with the US. That is the essential test so far as I am concerned, which allows me to go on and include case 2 (an invasion force with a US citizen) and case 3 (a home-grown Mombai group).

Regards

Mike

PS: This is far-removed from anything I'm talking about:

Yet, if Americans are in a particular camp with the "possible intent" of conducting a terrorist attack on the homeland should we take them out? It is obviously a very dangerous threat, but it is still a potential threat.

A "very dangerous threat" based on "possible intent" ??? What an odd intelligence matrix. "Possible" is less than "probable" and even less than "plausible". "Intent" cannot be objectively determined without overt acts. I see no "very dangerous threat". Who in the present administration is propounding killing misguided youngsters ?

Now, if that particular misguided youngster happens to be in an AQ training camp with the rest of the AQ recruits - and we take out the camp - so be it; but that is not an individual targeted killing. If the guy leaves the camp as a "graduate", how do we know that he suddenly becomes "disallusioned" - unless he tells us ?