Quibblers reside in the grey (or is it "gray"?) zones.
If a suspected enemy soldier is approaching you in a war zone, do you stop and say to yourself, "Gee. That COULD be an innocent lost civilian approaching me through that forbidden area, so I best hold my fire!"? Or do you, at a relatively safe distance, shoot the sumbitch to avoid the prospect that he will blow up his vest-bomb thereby snuffing out you and your comrades-in-arms?
If you shoot him, and he turns out to have been a fucking innocent civilian lost American, do you then say "Oh shit. I MEANT to give him a fair 'trial' and assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"
grey is BE, gray is AE.
the unlawful combatant travesty is manifest in gitmo, and bagram.
that was the prelude.
the next step is to declare a shoot to kill order for persons deemed to have taken up arms with al qaeda, or "the enemy".
it now extends to US citizens.
irrelevant to me actually.
i just observe that it just needs "someone" to declare another person to be "the enemy" to justify executing this person.
this solely depends on the "someone".
i don't trust "someone".
"someone" needs to be closely controlled.
Sometimes, outside those gray (or gray) areas, the answer is painfully obvious.
President Obama used to do cocaine. The best evidence of that? The asswipe SAID so himself.
al-Awlaki was an American who DID take up with al qaeda in time of war AGAINST America. The best evidence of that? Again, his own fucking words.
Now, steering you BACK to the question (and the hypothetical scenario which you seem to have ducked):
IF the guy is approaching you in the war zone, through that forbidden area, do you take the chance that he is going to blow the shit out of you and your comrades in arms with his al qaeda approved martyr vest bomb (ask for it by name!) OR do you shoot the guy from a safe distance?
that is ROE and for the military to discuss.
you are derailing your own thread.
or do you think that in your scenario the suspect is waving a US passport?