Let's follow that logic.
You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.
Same scenario, but now it's the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?
You disagree with 74 million people then?
Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?
Well, didn't take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.
Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.
Does it? I see one example that isn't violent.
Funny how as soon as Democrats think they have some unlimited magic power all they can come up with is killing their political rivals.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don't vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.
United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018
Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”