Define “terrorist”. This could be read as claiming people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned criminals is concerned.
You're attempting to create a strawman argument where none exists. Clearly, our government is NOT going to conduct drone strikes abroad nor within our borders against a common criminal. Thus, I fail to see your point in seeking to "define a terrorist". If you really need clarity, buy yourself a Webster's Dictionary and look it up.
This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.
I've done no such thing. I've clearly eluded to the lines being blurred in this regard suggesting that those in the Justice Department do need to tread lightly, exhausting all recourses before taking such drastic measures as drone strikes against U.S. citizens wherever they may be pursued for crimes committed (convicted or alledged).
Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.
In the sense that the Constitution is the foundation for our laws, yes it is the perverbial "line in the sand". However, I strongly disagree that "strict adherence to the law is political ideology". That's like saying that before the police can arrest you for jaywalking he must first inquire as to your political affilication and if such is different from his then you're liable to have the book thrown at you. A rather foolish notion don't you think?
It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.
Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.
You don't declare war against a nation that harbors a "criminal" no matter the offense committed. However, you DO declare war against a nation who supports, aids and abides the criminal who has committed an act of war* against your country. No clearer example can be demonstrated in this than the connection between Osama bin Laden, Al-Quade and the Taliban as the governming body in Afghanistan. Notice the difference here.
The Taliban, a remnant of Al-Quade and Osama all fled to Pakistan but notice that the U.S. didn't declare war against that country. Ask yourself "Why not?" The answer commonly given is "because they have nukes" but that's the easy way out. Truth is, the Pakistan government gave assistance to the U.S. government as broadly as it could to fight the Taliban and Al-Quade strongholds in Pakistan. It was their military and portions of their Intelligence Agency that was uncooperative. I would encourage you to study-up on the matter before reaching any other conclusion and try to understand more on U.S./foriegn relations other than what you read in the headlines.
So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.
You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.
Again, I've done nothing of the sort. I've merely said it is a very thin line our government walks on this issue of drone strikes against its own citizens whether abroad or domestically, the latter Chief Justice Holder has stated would not happen under today's rule of law. However, Rand Paul was correct in bringing this matter to light despite using the wrong bullwhip in order to do it.
*Although the U.S. did not declare war against Afghanistan, the Taliban nor Al-Quade, the use of military force was authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the UN. (See
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist)