Hard to read this as it is leading with false precepts and misdefinitions.
The executive does not declare war, we are not in a declared war, US rights do not end at US borders, and lethal force is not authorized by our own rules of engagement here they were not fired upon or even in danger of losing them.
Your precedents offered do not fit, the one that fits is obama drone striking an american overseas, and that was a violation just as the nsa taking all information without warrant. Or double tapping reuters journalists in iraq from helicoptor. Both illegal by our own rules and laws.
The constitution supersedes all other law, and codified law supercedes case law. A precedent of ignoring the bill of rights does not legalize dishonoring the bill of rights. Any law contrary is illegal and unenforceable, in law.
That said, interdicting boats suspected of carrying contraband is not unworkable. Why you would apologize for the admin setting precedents of killing on a whim on secret evidence I do not know.
Hard to read this as it is leading with false precepts and misdefinitions.
The executive does not declare war, we are not in a declared war, US rights do not end at US borders, and lethal force is not authorized by our own rules of engagement here they were not fired upon or even in danger of losing them.
Your precedents offered do not fit, the one that fits is obama drone striking an american overseas, and that was a violation just as the nsa taking all information without warrant. Or double tapping reuters journalists in iraq from helicoptor. Both illegal by our own rules and laws.
The constitution supersedes all other law, and codified law supercedes case law. A precedent of ignoring the bill of rights does not legalize dishonoring the bill of rights. Any law contrary is illegal and unenforceable, in law.
That said, interdicting boats suspected of carrying contraband is not unworkable. Why you would apologize for the admin setting precedents of killing on a whim on secret evidence I do not know.