Excellent post.

Josh Marshall is laboring non-stop about teabagger violence, while we have a Dem government that kills its own citizens without trial.

here's the washington post article for those interested:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

did you see this:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39014

According to both Jerome Starkey (who’s primarily responsible for initially blowing up NATO’s official story on this), and to the New York Times’ Richard Oppel, someone tampered with the evidence at the scene, most likely the special operations forces conducting the raid. The tampering ranged from digging bullets out of walls to digging bullets out of people and then washing the wounds with alcohol.

Remember that survivors of the raid said that the special operations forces denied the wounded medical treatment and prevented survivors from going to get medical help for an extended period of time, during which one of the women and one of the men who were mortally wounded died.

That means special operations forces were busy digging bullets out of walls and/or people to cover their asses while the innocent people they shot bled to death.

disgusting is what all of this is!

Hmmm, my gut agrees with you. He seems like a bad guy who probably has had a hand or two in lots to kill Americans.

Fortunately, people don't live and die by "my gut."

But maybe, you say, Obama has access to a lot more information than I do. That'd be true. I also find it far-fetched that the President would put a guy on an assassination list without good cause.

But in our system people aren't executed based on "just trust me." The evidence must be presented in open court. The people must be able to observe the process to make sure it works and to make sure it's fair, not just to insure justice in this individual case but to insure justice going forward.

So even if you believe that the President knows just what he's doing and that Awlaki is a murder who has it coming to him, this is not the way we go about things. The process is important too.

In this country, justice used to mean a concrete allegation, trial and verdict.

Then we had a bunch of progressives screaming hysterically about civilian trials for foreign terrorists, in full compliance with our legal system and values.

Where are these progressives now?

Consider, in our current world, where wars against the United States are conducted by operatives in civilian clothes, that we identify an important operative overseas. He has not merely advocated war against us, but is involved in the planning and execution of operations designed to kill Americans in the U.S. because they are Americans. His enemy is not the individual victims, but the nation.

Imagine further that he is a native of Yemen, let us say, and is conducting operations from there despite the designation by the Yemeni government that he is part of an insurgent group at war with that government. If we target him, lives of innocents may be spared. If he grant him immunity because he wears no uniform, innocent lives may be lost - the next Christmas Day bomb mission, for example, may succeed.

These are the enemies we confront these days - the ones carrying no flag and wearing no uniform, but who are more rather than less dangerous for all that. To fail to act against them would be an act of negligence on the part of leaders sworn to protect the nation against its enemies.

Wait, however. Imagine in contrast to the above that the one working to kill us is a U.S. citizen who finds haven abroad from domestic legal enforcement instituions. Should his citizenship grant him special status?

In my view, it should. It should accord him a status that is more reprehensible, more despicable, more dishonorable than that of the hpothetical native-born Yemeni I cited above. He is, for these reasons, doubly deserving of the full measure of our rage.

And yet, we are in fact doing something of the opposite. We are granting him extra consideration rather than less, simply because of a citizenship that he did nothing to earn and has done much to disgrace. It is probably reasonable for special review to apply to these circumstances, but this is for legal and political reasons, not moral ones.

I have seen nothing in this post and the above comments to date to refute this position. It is my sense that a few extremists on the left are instead engaged in an unfortunate effort to search every action of our government in hopes of vilifying our leaders, no matter the intellectual contortions they need to justify their position. This, I believe, will tend to discredit them in the eyes of their fellow citizens, including liberals, who view the world through a less distorted prism but one more attuned to the visceral understanding that innocents have the right to be defended by their government.

I hope that the views expressed by the extremists will not be confused with the views of liberals in general.

Allow me to retort:

Consider, in our current world, where wars against the United States are conducted by operatives in civilian clothes, that we identify an important operative overseas. He has not merely advocated war against us, but is involved in the planning and execution of operations designed to kill Americans in the U.S. because they are Americans. His enemy is not the individual victims, but the nation.

5th, 6th, and 7th amendments confer inalienable rights to US citizens. This individual is granted the right of due process, trial by jury, and protection from illegal search and seizure.

Imagine further that he is a native of Yemen, let us say, and is conducting operations from there despite the designation by the Yemeni government that he is part of an insurgent group at war with that government. If we target him, lives of innocents may be spared. If he grant him immunity because he wears no uniform, innocent lives may be lost - the next Christmas Day bomb mission, for example, may succeed.

The ticking time bomb scenario does not trump or abrogate the United States Constitution. That is the binding legal document for US citizens. This cleric is entitled to be arrested and given a trial by jury of his peers. The evidence needs to be presented and weighed by an impartial judge and jury. These are the facts of the game.

I have seen nothing in this post and the above comments to date to refute this position. It is my sense that a few extremists on the left are instead engaged in an unfortunate effort to search every action of our government in hopes of vilifying our leaders, no matter the intellectual contortions they need to justify their position.

Now, I am an Obama supporter. I may even be a victim of Hopenosis. But I have a brain, and it still functions.

That statement is a straw man. The Constitution of the United States refutes your position. We are in no legal or moral position to kill people based on what the President believes.

Your sense needs to be fine-tuned. You are using the same threadbare logic that has been applied to torture, extraordinary rendition, detention in lieu of trial, inhibition of an attorney from their clien, warrantless wiretapping, withholding of photographic evidence of war crimes, etc.

We need to be true to our binding legal documents and moral principles. There is no point in saving lives if the standard of living for all becomes increasingly oppressed. There is a cost/benefit analysis called ethics. I think you should study it.

The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice. If Awlaki voluntarily surrenders to authorities and demands a trial, he should be given one. If he continues to try to kill us from beyond the reach of our justice system, the U.S. Constitution should not, and does not, in my view, protect him from just retribution designed to defend our citizens against his lethal intentions.

I will retract that statement when the SCOTUS rules otherwise, if others here are prepared to concede that a court ruling in favor of the Admnistration eliminates their claim that its acts are unconstitutional.

I'm willing to predict the outcome with reasonable certainty. I suggest that the Constitutional argument will prove too flimsy in the eyes of the courts to nullify the reasonable judgment of this Admnistation - one likely to be supported by most intelligent Americans across the political spectrum. Are other predictions to the contrary to be offered by those who have commented?

Yes of course I believe those things, but I believe your argument plays into the hands of right wingers who ridicule the Administration for acting as though Al Qaeda warfare against us is a matter of criminality rather than war. Those claims were focused on some efforts to try defendants in civilian courts rather than military tribunals when the defendants are in custody within the U.S., and within the reach of the court system. To suggest we adopt a criminal code approach to those making war against us from outside would invite even more ridicule, and justifiably so.

As I suggested above, I'm confident the courts will distinguish between criminal offenses and acts of war, and will not judge an act of war to be a criminal act merely because it is conducted by a citizen. Until that proves untrue, I'm aware of no law or constitutional provision that is being violated. I'll be surprised if the courts disagree, and I hope that those who comment here on the importance of playing by the rules will consider a decision of the courts to be a rule they should honor.

Your rationale does nothing to demonstrate that what the government plans on doing is legal in any way Fred. That's the problem here.

Furthermore, your quick acceptance of the government story demonstrates a real naivete considering the dozens upon dozens of examples of the government lying about such matters in recent years during this conflict and the one in Afghanistan, not to mention the US government's biggest lie of all time about WMD. Killing citizen's by fiat without evidence or any sort of due process is precisely what the founders intended to prevent because that is what King's do: not elected President's. That's why we have a constitution: to prohibit exactly what is under discussion here. All the rationalizations in the world dont' change the fact that this activity is as illegal as the day is long Fred.

And one last thing: what if you're wrong and there is (as so often has been the case) no real evidence, only suspiscion and they murder this man at the behest of the President? What then Fred? What do we tell his family? The rule of law prevents such situations because under the rule of law the rights of the accused are preserved and the accused have the right to confront their accusers. This is so fundamental to American law I am shocked it has to be stated.

Fred, the Constitution does not permit shooting people simply because they are accused. It doesn't. Not anywhere or under any circumstances. That is illegal.

And one more thing Fred... he isn't even accused except by secret governmental judgement. If the government has evidence of anything beyond this man having opinions they don't like then let them bring the evidence and charges to court.

that you support the right of a president to murder a citizen out of fear of what the right wing might say, or because that president says they are a terrorist, without any due process, shows how scary and corrupt your ideas are.

and if a court says that is so, then we should fight against that decision.

We could eliminate anti-abortionist terrorism against our citizens by simply rounding up and shooting all the anti-abortion exremists. Are you okay with that too? They are terrorists after all who have killed their fellow Americans.

Well, as much as I detest and abhor the criminals who terrorize doctors, women and abortion clinics I am not for rounding them all up and murdering them based on their beliefs and no further evidence. That's lawless, tyrannical, unconstitutional and downright unAmerican activity. And if we do this to the anti-abortionists then who is next? Maybe those who oppose US militarism? Nuclear Power? The divine right of Obama to spy on the American people illegally? This is sick and undemocratic thinking and these are the tactics of totalitarians like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

In other news, assassination of non-citizens still peachy.

I've never seen a "shoot on sight" type order for an international fugitive before. If he's accused of a crime and there's a warrant for his arrest then the proper action is, of course, to seek to detain or capture him or to negotiate for his arrest and extradition.

Is it not true that many "terrorists" accused by us have been found to be not guilty at all? http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/19/guantanamo-detainee-innocent.html

How do you know that this particular man is a "terrorist"?

i recommended this diary and encourage everyone else to do so.

I've addressed the legal issue above. At the risk of belaboring the point, those who place themselves outside the reach of our law and continue to try to kill us forfeit the protection of our laws.

Do you think that the people we accused of terrorism (but were found to be not guilty) should have been assassinated in the first place just in case?

So reasonable Fred,

You are completely wrong.

Art.I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

A bill of attainder, as we learned from Congress passing one recently against another dire menace to the State (ACORN), is a law directed against a specific entity, including a person. It was a disgrace that this 'law' was 'passed.' Our Congressthingies would not pass a fourth grade civics class.

Art. II, perhaps? The C-in-C has the power "to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States."

The C-in-C commands the Militia.

oh, fuck it, Fred, you illiterate asshole, read the Constitution yourself, and look up the numerous words you don't know.

Say Fred, Greenwald the extremist has this "update" to his article and your comment fits this bill perfectly. Any response to this direct question? Hmmmm?

"If you're going to go into the comment section -- or anywhere else -- and argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that. Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself -- not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama. That's especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false."

So Fred, to reiterate Greenwald's question about your confidence this guy is quilty of something:

"How do you know that his is?"

Sorry, should read "How do you know he is?"

THANK YOU!!!

Fred, you're full of it. The Constitution specially says that no government can take a citizen's life or liberty without due process.

The government will try and rationalize what it's doing using the same logic that you and Cheney used - enemies without uniform, blah blah.

It's one thing when someone is killed as a result of military action. It's another thing when the government singles you out and puts you on its hit list.

It's astonishing that you're using Bush-style moralizing to find excuses for Obama. That's cheerleading of the worst kind.

Certainly, assassinating them first renders the question of their guilt a theoretical matter only, as every banana republic knows.

Because it's the new normal. Is the President authorizing crimes? Well, "every President does it."
And they say racists have been given carte blanche (no pun intended) to air their hateful views wherever they want. No one is held to any standards anymore; the fish rots from the head.

Greenwald is confusing "guilt" concerning past offenses with responsibility for current efforts to kill Americans. As I mentioned earlier, the question of how to deal with past wrongs when the offender deliberately places himself outside the reach of the law may be complex, but when the offender is currently trying to kill you from a place where you can't arresst him, complexity disappears. If he's shooting at you, you shoot back.

There's a loose analogy with police engaged in actions against a violent criminal. They can't shoot him for past offenses, but they are permitted to use lethal force if they judge him to be an immediate threat to the life and safety of others. As some will note, this policy can be abused, but none will argue that it should not exist, and that lethal force should never be used even when lives are in danger. I won't pursue the analogy, because Awlaki is at war with us, not engaged in a police gun battle, but the justification for lethal force does hold when it's needed to protect innocent lives from current dangers, rather than merely to arrest someone for something in the past.

I've invited everyone who comments to render a prediction on how the courts will rule on a challenge to this policy. My prediction - they will rule in favor of the Admnistration's policy either by a lopsided majority or unanimously. I'll welcome predictions from others to the contrary if accompanied by a prediction of how the court would reason in ruling against the Administration. I expect there will be challenges, and so we'll have a chance to observe the outcome.

You have entirely evaded the question Fred.

It was/is quite direct and simple and posed by a Constitutional lawyer and you're not a lawyer Fred, yet you claim to know the law better than Greenwald?

Can you answer the question please Fred?

How do you know this man is guilty of anything?

Don't both with other distractions and arguments Fred. Just answer that simple question.

I dare you.

When the police are involved in a shoot-out with a suspect there is very little ambiguity. There's either a gun battle or there isn't.

In this case they've ordered the assassination of the guy based on charges of conduct that, through his family, he denies. Now if they went to arrest him and he shot at the arresting agent and he was killed in a gun battle that'd be one thing.

An assassination is quite another.

Cause Greenwald, you know, hates America.

Although wouldn't he be legally justified in shooting anyone he reasonably believed represented the US Government, as a matter of self-defense, since he has been told the Government wants to shoot him first?

What would a law-abiding (or even non-law-abiding) citizen do once he or she learns he has been targeted for assassination by the President (I mean US Government), and then receives a knock on the door from a friendly Government official? Anyone?

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/31/glenn-greenwald/

This is DEMOCRATIC swampland, and perfectly respectable:

"I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that."

There is no difference, neither in terms of the constitution, nor in terms of justice, between murdering a citizen and murdering a non-citizen.

An oppressive government is always afraid of its own citizens more than of foreigners, and always begins by murdering foreigners to first legitimize murder, so that it can then be applied to citizens.

Everything that the US government does in Afghanistan will one day take place on US soil.

And there's certainly plenty of precedent for that

1

What the constitution actually says:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As far as I can see, there's no provision in the Constitution that turns these provisions off. Maybe Fred, however, has found one?

It would conclusively prove that the risk of assassination is not just for US citizens who are members of al Qaeda, have trained suicide bombers, or who have promoted violence against Americans and America.

His dad denies he's a member of Al Qaeda.
Which terrorist did he train? Awlaki has not admitted to doing such thing. Do you believe the U.S. allegations blindly? Why don't you believe Awlaki and his father blindly?

I think it's a bad policy, just don't think it's been carried out yet.

the President has the authority to drop a bomb on someone waging war on the US, even a US citizen. What's the difference if he authorized a bullet in the guys head instead? The difference is Congress never authorized a War on some guy in Yemen.

Uh ... Zip . . .

As to you point here...

NYT and Greenwald is the acceptance that an anonymous senior former Bush legal official can be taken it his or her word. To use that anonymous source in order to say that Obama is taking this further than even Bush is shoddy.

But but but ... Then there'd be no basis whatsoever for this story to rile up the look look look what this administration is doing crowd . . .

~OGD~

After all these months, running into years, I still have no idea who Barack Obama really is or what he might possibly stand for. Certainly targeted assassinations don't make an easy fit with "The Audacity of Hope".

We have to stop using events or circumstances as an excuse to circumvent our constitution and our laws.

In every instance where we abandon due process we grow less secure and less free in our daily lives. Obama is pursuing the same lawless track of his predecessor. Our entire framework of governance is predicated upon following this due process. The process may be cumbersome but there are no alternatives in law which permit changing this simply for the sake of expediency.

I'm unaware of any constitutional provision which permits executing a citizen without due process having been followed.

Could it be that pieces of the Patriot Act which citizens still have not been made privy to, and which no court could possibly uphold, allow for this?

He's exactly what he thinks you want him to be. Until he's not - then he never said he was in the first place. One thing we can be sure of, after this administration is over he and his inner circle will be RICH, RICH, RICH.

Me too. I was pretty crushed to see just how totally lacking in controls our policy really is. I swear, every day I become more convinced that Obama's ordained role is to neutralize opposition to Bush policies from the left.

Give me THE ACTUAL source . . .

Wait ... Better yet. Verify with three separate sources.

And don't give me this bullshit sales pitch that everyone was doing it when Bush was shitting on the carpet. Many were. Many were not. That's just another vague line of crap you seem to like to hide within. "Someone was doing it so it only makes sense that everybody must have been doing it."

And as to what "...Obama's leak-dominant press methodology..." has to with any of it is all in your pretzel logic brain...

Yammer Yammer Yammer . . .

Blah Blah Blah . . .

~OGD~

Fred Moolten: "The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice."

Yes it does! There's no exception to the Bill of Rights for fugitives. You're making things up.

It is a very novel idea, you know, to apply the war powers to individuals. It's especially troublesome when wars are no longer declared and there's no clear process for identifying with whom we are at war. The power you for which you seem to be advocating seems to be very ill defined--approaching an arbitrary power of the king to kill whomever he or his deputies decide is a danger to the country. That doesn't sound to me anything like what our founders intended when they gave Congress the power to declare war and to make rules governing captures on land and sea.

Then this whole messy reality is just one big conspiracy without end. You may as well take your soma and be done with it. Or learn to fire a weapon. Maybe you could get a couple tea party pals?

To paraphrase Rutabaga, Fred is an absurd verbose pathetic little creature groveling in his self-importance. Or maybe I'm paraphrasing myself.

In any case, we have rules enough for engaging criminals who are in the process of trying to kill someone, as we have rules for those engaged in warfare.

Unfortunately we stretch those rules, with tools like Fred, to say Saddam Hussein who we want to assume was manufacturing WMDs. But being a superpower means never having to you're sorry, and Fred's A-Okay with that, since his mantra that trumps the Constitution is "Be afwaid.. be vewwy afwaid".

So in Fwed's bwave new woruwd, aside from evewywun being Elmuh Fudd, evewywun's a tewwuwist that Obama can pwotect us fwum by offing them with the snap of a finguh. So we can sweep safe at night, I pwesume. Give 'em hell, Fwed.

Yeah, plus if you look at the Big Picture concerning extra-judicial assassinations, it can
look awfully scary. Those of us who give Obama a pass on it aren't looking at the implications for the future: Will you be comfortable with President X asserting the same power? Those of us who believed Obama would vacate the Unitary Executive Powers were sadly mistaken; I wished more of us were outraged.

I've missed you around here.

I disagree with you, respectfully. Anonymous sources exist for a reason: whistle-blowing. If a source is afraid of repurcussions, then by all means a journalist should protect their sources.

But anonymous sources have become the common practice for beltway gossip and disinformation. Let's take this NYT story as an example. What does this source have to lose by exculpating the Bush administration? Nothing. What would the journalist lose by naming the source? Nothing but their own credibility if the source is untrustworthy. That is why I sarcastically named a serial liar like Gonzalez, who was proven himself to say anything if it shines a better light on himself and his actions.

Greenwald has been highly critical of this practice and has devoted many blog inches to its abuse. He has rightly pointed out that using anonymous sources is about access: a journalist who wishes to maintain close ties to the administration will act as a stenographer because their livelihood depends on it. This means that most beltway journalism is bilge. Hell, look no further than Judith Miller.

So, for Greenwald to latch onto this anonymous source as proof that Obama has taken the unitary executive further than Bush did is disingenuous. It is a minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. Greenwald only proves his thesis by setting his own actions up as an example: we agree with anonymous sources that tell us what we want to hear and hate the ones who do otherwise. This is how disinformation is allowed to fester and reinforce partisan thinking.

IMO, the Bush administration has the potential to be guilty pretty much all crimes against humanity. I think it is silly to push outrage against this president by trying to exculpate this particular crime through an anonymous source. What actually impresses me about all of this is that journalists are starting to practice even a modicum of their job and pointing out that these crimes disguised as authorizations are actually occurring.

I've revisited the comments since my own last comment yesterday. I don't believe I've seen any that refutes the points I was trying to make. So as not to belabor the issue, I'll summarize:

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

2. Wars these days are often conducted by those who wear no uniform and carry no flag. This does not immunize them from military retaliation if they are conducting war against the U.S.

3. (perhaps most salient in that it has been consistently misrepresented above): The justice system addresses alleged wrongs that have been committed. There are challenges to this principle when the wrongdoer is outside the reach of the system, but that is not the issue here. The president has not been authorized to kill Awlaki for past actions, but for what he is doing now, which is engaging in attempts to conduct terrorist operations against Americans. In other words - if someone has done wrong and can be arrested, put him on trial. If someone is shooting at you, shoot back. The distinction between the role of the courts in judging past offenses, and the military in protecting us against ongoing threats, is paramount to our security.

4. The courts will almost certainly side with the President in regard to the main points of this principle, either unanimously or by a lop-sided margin. I don't know whether it will reach SCOTUS, but if so, I predict that most or all Justices, including a majority of the four liberal members, will side with the Administration. It's a commonsense principle, and I see arguing against it as a vain effort to impose an ideological overlay on something that will be seen as straightforward by most Americans as well as the justice system.

your argument is incredibly damaging to the fabric of democratic society. War is word that has become elasticised to the point that we can declare a war on ideologies, substances, and mental fugues. War has simply come to mean the reservation of our government to use deadly violence. War has become a smokescreen for overt and covert force. You are aiding and abetting this cognitive dissonance

Thank you. Hear, hear!

The quote from the NYT is not an example of Greenwald using anonymous sources, technically; it is him using the NYT.
It doesn't matter to me if Bush is better or worse than Obama. I suspect that this does matter to many, so he is using this 'source' (again, the NYT) for rhetorical purposes- how it is 'partisan?'
I'm not sure. Is he trying to preach to the converted (progressives who want to damn Obama with the words 'worse than Bush?") or is he trying to appeal to liberterian Repubs, or to moderates who think Bush went too far? Probably all of these groups.

Greenwald has his agenda. So do I. So does the NYT. I think my speculations above are plausible guesses into why Greenwald would throw 'anonymous source' into his "source." Why would the NYT want to protect this anonymous source? Why would the source want to be anon in the first place?

Maybe the source is an ongoing one, whose info is given on the conditions of anonymity, and this just happened to be something said by the source under these conditions. Maybe the source- the "former senior legal official in the Bush admin"- wants a job in a pro-Obama think tank. Or an ultra-conservatative one- it isn't to Bush either.

I appreciate your attentiveness to details, and your sarcasm (no snark here). The source may be Gonzo. Like me, though for vastly different reasons, he is concerned about his employment status.

oh, and- Saying Greenwald is trying to 'prove' that Obama is worse than Bush is pretty damn uncharitable, because it's piss-poor 'proof' to use someone else's anon source as any kind of proof of a contention that is unprovable anyway. At most, he is being rhetorically excessive in his use of a non-anonymous source (there is a name at the top of that NYT article, isn't there?).

Unlike some big talkers around here, I actually don't have to sling a bunch of hypothetical shit about getting along with the "other side" while never leaving my own comfort zone - I already have plenty of "Tea Party Pals". This is Ron Paul country, only way NOT to have a few such friends is to be a raging dickhead. That's one reason (of many) I know 99% of what TPMers think they know on the topic is absolute bullshit (yourself included).

And I'm a pretty damn good shot already, thanks. Come on out to Idaho - I've got a great .45 trap gun that would be perfect to teach a tenderfoot like yourself some basic firearms skill.

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

Are you familiar with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? There is a thing in there about killing people.

Anyway, reverse the argument: if these "individuals trying to kill Americans" have, say, a law that allows them to kill Americans, does that make it OK to do so?

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

Whoa!!! Really? So what is next Fred? Summarily killing drug dealers because certain drugs kill Americans? I look at it there is nothing that gives him permission to do that. MY POV is based on the notion of the rule of law, habeus corpus and the innocent until proven guilty. And the 'argument' that the president has the right to do that since 'we are at war' doesn't cut it either. Up until Bush a state of war were acts of aggression committed by sovereign nations. I reject the Bush administration redefining what 'war' is. So are you saying all the president has to do is utter the word 'war' and he can do whatever he/she wants?