>Why didn't Obama do anything about it?

Responding to the above, Obama did do something: he presided over the first extrajudicial assassination of a US citizen by drone strike.

One that pledged allegiance to a foreign "state" that engages in violence?

I fail to see the problem

The fifth amendment is of course broad, but is it so broad that the president signing a piece of paper can be considered due process?

Even if everyone has perfect intentions (doubtful), you need checks and balances to prevent human error.

I'm sure the area where US laws apply can be discussed to greater lengths, but they're not applicable outside of the (geographical) US, regardless if you're a citizen or not. Even if the subject of the action is an US citizen. (except for the taxation of non-resident citizens, which is a whole can of worms I'm sure)

This is for better or worse.

Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.

I don't know why you think your constitutional rights disappear outside the geographic US. That is not the case. Constitutional rights protect citizens from our government regardless of their physical location. Indeed, geography was not a part of the Obama administration's justification.

As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.

> Constitutional rights protect citizens from our government regardless of their physical location.

Well, the constitution is the rules and limits that apply to the US Government mainly (for the benefit of not only the US citizens).

However the Constitution is pretty much defined as the Law of the Land (Article VI https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... )

And if the case is as you describe then it seems it's a case for a federal prosecutor to make in Court.

By your logic, it's acceptable for the PM of Italy to order the assassination of an Italian-American dual citizen because that Italian has pledged allegiance to a foreign state that engages in violence?

If that dual citizen is actively engaging in such violence and Italy is a (potential) target of such violence, and his activities are happening outside Italy, yes.

> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...

Because it was missing due process?

>It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.

Why didn't Obama do anything about it?

Frankly, despite initial campaign promises during his first campaign, hes been as bad or worse than the GWB administration in a number of ways. Why he got a pass on a lot of it is beyond me.

We get our information mainly from the media. They decide what the majority of the country knows and doesn't know, and who gets a pass and who doesn't, because most of us don't have the time or desire to obtain first-hand knowledge of what's going on in the world.

I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.

I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.

Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.

I have to agree, though I did vote, I voted libertarian (not that I really like Gary Johnson all that much either). I can't watch/read most "news" without at least half of it pissing me off in one way or another. On the one hand, I don't like Trump all that much. On the other, I don't like all the fluffed up reporting on crap that the past administration did too. Or at least the over-inflated sense of how it's so much worse now.

In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.

Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.

2-4 years is extremely optimistic, but I think this is an issue that (finally) has drawn more attention than usual, so there is a chance there will be some work towards its resolution.

The CPB agent can just shoot you if he wishes? That's some seriously ridiculous hyperbole. No American is getting shot by border agents on a whim.

Until it actually happens.

It's not happening now, but it would still be legal.