Citizens rights v. Citizens protection. Where do we draw the line?

How Should We Treat American Jihadists?

he legal answer is not going to help
Andrew C. McCarthy The National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341371/how-should-we-treat-american-jihadists-andrew-c-mccarthy

Topic: The author contends that the solution to handling and preventing acts of terror cannot be dictated by the law and responses should be determined on a case-by-case basis.Under the Constitution, Americans who join the enemy may lawfully be treated like the enemy, which includes being attacked with lethal force. In light of the recent debate over  the targeted killings of American citizens, forces us to ask, where does the protection and defense of our country overlap with the level of aggression that is necessary to carry out such defenses. The government's war powers cannot have explicit limitations, this would prevent the actions that may be required by unforseen threats. We must be able to marshal all our might to repel any conceivable existential threat. Yet the Constitution, the sole legitimate source of the government’s power to levy war, is, quintessentially, the citizen’s protection against aggression by that same government. Thus, the tension between government’s war powers and the citizen’s fundamental rights is a conundrum. The author refers to a number of examples of American's who became affiliated with jihadists and consequently, betrayed their country. Noting that the number of Americans who have done this,, it is clear that the issue carries a much larger connotation. That is, How can we preserve citizen's rights and protect the national welfare at the same time?

Opinion: To answer my question above^, there are a number of approaches that already provide a solution to the issues that the author of this piece seems to have little faith in. First, Congress has the ability to carry out protective measures under the "necessary and proper" clause. However, I do recognize that congress is limited in action if the threat is not immediate and I believe that is what the author found fault with. When there is a domestic threat, lets say a Islamic radical, that individual is entitled to practice what is guaranteed to them in the bill of rights until they commit a crime or make an explicit threat, leaving ways for many legal loopholes. If the government would attempt to supress this individual, they would become what every history book since the British Occupation of India has deemed as an oppressive ruler. I believe that the U.S. government and policy makers should not take any further measures to monitor these individuals under the presumption that this will be a slipper slope and may lead to an oppressive rule that only worsens as more and more precedents are established.

Conclusion: When an American citizen leaves the U.S. they are no longer entitled to the  same liberties and freedoms as they would be in U.S. soil. Therefore, when an individual leaves the country and connects with a group that acts contradictory to american policy and defense, they can and should be treated as a traitor. The fact that they have committed treason should nullify their citizenship.  There is much more to war than the article contends and I would like to clarify here; The U.S. military should not be focused on killing as if participating in a war of attrition, but rather seeking intelligence that can lead to the capture and legal prosecution of someone who has committed a crime against the U.S.. Drone strikes are an effective tool but are not necessarily the best tool. Terrorism is a heinous crime, but when we prioritize the capturing and interrogations of terrorists, the U.S. would be much more effective and fighting the war on terror, and subsequently, preserving fundamental American values in the process, particulary due process and other citizen's rights.