that name US Citizens.

"Mr. President, let's have a new Executive Order reversing the one that authorized the 'kill lists' that name US Citizens."

...the issue of how to deal with Americans who take up arms against their country is still going to have to be dealt with. The notion that they're simply going to be ignored is not realistic.

in evidence, at least in the case of the three US Citizens killed by drones in Yemen.

I am suggesting, however, that this is a problem created by an Obama Executive Order that can also be solved in the same manner.

"Also, your comment assumes they took up arms, which isn't in evidence."

...those who have taken up arms still have to be dealt with. What should the process be for that?

The fact is that the one person targeted was a member of al Qaeda. There is a demand for public evidence and justification. That's an issue. Still, the point is how to deal with Americans who take up arms with terrorist, including defining a process to make the justification for targeted killings.

It's a fact that the Constitution affords the President to act accordingly, is not going to make the issue go away.

From the Center for Constitutional Rights (arguing against the current policy for targeted killings, but citing the exceptions) :

The policy supported by the current EO was badly decided. Just cancel that part of it is most wrong-headed - naming US Citizens to the 'kill list". Keep the rest for now. We can then work out the side-issues in due course.

It's a lot simpler than you and some others are trying to make it.

Nobody has suggested they be "ignored," except you.

"There were ways of dealing with such threats before drones and kill lists, you know."

...the ways? How did we deal with these individuals:

"In extremely narrow circumstances, judicial process is not required if an individual poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to others, and lethal force is a last resort to address the threat."

"The only exception to the rule is where the individual poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat."

Isn't that how FISA works?

Democrats and liberals, who seem to like Obama more than they like intellectual consistency.

we'll be living with for decades to come. The short-term "smart thing" was to do nothing, to avoid antagonizing Republicans. It's a piss-poor long-term strategy, though, because it sends the message that people in power get a blank check, which makes it more likely that others will abuse their power and no one will try to do much of anything about it. Similarly, "too big to fail" = "too big to prosecute" is going to bite us in the butt.

And, have the jury members witness any executions and be liable for any "collateral damage".

then the sentence is executed? One of the punishments that can be meted out is the death sentence.

I think we call that the Judicial branch of government don't we? So why do we need to go to the time and expense of setting up a new one. Why don't we just follow the Constitution and use the one we already have?