> No, the logic is that the US government may target enemies in war by all the means lawful against enemies inwar, even if those enemies are US citizens, anywhe

> No, the logic is that the US government may target enemies in war by all the means lawful against enemies inwar, even if those enemies are US citizens, anywhere in the world, including within the US. > And there's plenty of precedent for that. There is clearly precedent for criminally charging US citizens for such things, or in the case where they're either subject to the UCMJ or otherwise acting as a lawful uniformed combatant, maybe a court martial. But what is the precedent for allowing unilateral lethal military targeting of known US citizens outside the US, or anyone within the US, outside of moments when the accused is actively engaging in physical violent warfare? I'm not aware of any before 9/11.