I'm on that bandwagon right now. To tell you the truth, given a choice between her, Obama, and the clusterfark of 'tards other than Johnson/Huntsman on the 'pub side, I'm voting for Warren.

I think the action directed against this enemy of the country can be turned into a rule to deal with Foogie's concerns. And I'll call it the "Robert E. Lee" rule.

That takes care of the argument from my perspective.

Next legal conundrum, please!

Presidents or Directors of the CIA were killing foreigners suspected of being a threat to U.S. national security (or something like that) before the hearings of the Church Committee took place. The poisoned shoes and exploding cigar planned for Castro had not worked very well, but "wet work" had taken out foreign public officials and military officers before those hearings. It turned out, at that time at least, that the country did not want its intelligence agencies doing that.

Now we are back to doing that again in the war on a noun. JohnThomas8 correctly points out that Congress has not explicitly declared war. I don't think either Bush or Obama asked them to do so, although it was clear that Congress was initially in full support except for a few (Ron Paul most vocal among them). However, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists could be construed as authorizing all sorts of military action, including this assassination. Parts of the Patriot Act have somewhat the same implication. The classified parts may be quite explicit on this.

I could argue that the U.S. is still bound by both the laws that resulted from the Church Committee and the Constitution, whether or not it is an American citizen who is targeted for assassination. It would be odd for American citizens to have less protection from assassination by the U.S. government than do non-citizens.

I could also argue that the assassination of this brutal terrorist was morally right, no matter what the laws say. The assassination of Hitler would have had for me the same moral quality.

Thus I suggest again that the government must agonize about such decisions. It seems quite clear that the Bush Administration did little agonizing under the neo-conservatives. A Perry Administration might do even less. My comfort level about such assassinations is thus quite tenuous.

I would be more comfortable if the U.S. stepped out of its role as police force for the world and if it pushed hard for negotiations between Israel and Palestine, because I think these actions would radically reduce the number of people who would be willing to commit terrorism on the U.S. and its interests abroad. I recall that Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship because he was violently opposed to the Saudi ruling family. I share his view that the ibn Sauds are one of the most corrupt governments on earth. What seems to have first turned him into our enemy was our support for the Saudi regime following the Kuwait war -- those two enormous bases between Mecca and Medina. Had we not taken that action, we might not even have had to be raising these questions. In other words, we are bringing this dilemma upon ourselves.

Al Alwaki was killed by predator drones (probably operated from the US), not by some CIA "spooks" who put a bullet through his head.

Fighting terrorists who have no state is a tricky business. If we're going to wait for Congress, especially this Congress, to declare war, or some such other legal nicety, while terrorists are moving forward to blow up your child's school, or the store where your mother buys her groceries, or the airplane your grandkids are on, well, good luck with that.

It's easy to be a purist, seeing the world in black and white, when you aren't responsible for the safety of the American people. The world is much more complicated than that.

I applaud President Obama for taking swift and decisive action against these terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans. And I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I don't think we can make the second topic go away. Sooner or later, we're going to have to look into the abyss.

Overall, this [statistical] study shows that we need to rethink current counterterrorism policies. Decapitation is not ineffective merely against religious, old, or large groups, it is actually counterproductive for many of the terrorist groups currently being targeted. In many cases, targeting a group’s leadership actually lowers its rate of decline. Compared to a baseline rate of decline for certain terrorist groups, the marginal value of decapitation is negative. Moreover, going after the leader may strengthen a group’s resolve, result in retaliatory attacks, increase public sympathy for the organization, or produce more lethal attacks. Based on these findings, it seems imperative that policy makers consider not only the overall effectiveness of decapitation as a counterterrorism measure but also the potential for adverse consequences.

We seem to be talking about two entirely different things.

First, we're talking about the killing of Anwar al Awlaki and Samir Khan in Yemen this week. Everybody seems to agree that this was a good thing, and that President Obama made the right decision.

Second, we're talking about the possibility that some future president with more questionable judgment might abuse that kind of power.

But every time somebody mentions the second topic, somebody else repeats that the killing of Anwar al Awlaki and Samir Khan in Yemen this week was a good thing, and that President Obama made the right decision.

As if by repeating that, we can ignore the second topic. As if the second topic isn't relevant. As if by repeating that President Obama made a good decision this time, we can make the second topic go away.

I don't think we can make the second topic go away. Sooner or later, we're going to have to look into the abyss.

Obama keeps saying, 'That's not who we are' when audiences cheer executions, letting sick people die, and other displays of barbarity and cruelty. Quite honestly, I do not know who we are anymore. I do not like what I see and hear that seems to have become acceptable levels of fear, hatred, ignorance and brutality.

...I'm among those glad these two are no longer operating above ground but would like to see something in law that covers the situation so that it doesn't get abused.

OK, so what should the President, any President, wait for, when dealing with terrorists who are intent on killing Americans, and are, by their very nature, not aligned with any nation-state? A grand jury indictment? An indictment and trial in absentia? Would such a trial be open to the public, to ensure transparency? What if that process takes 2 years? Are we OK with innocent people getting slaughtered while the slow-grinding criminal process works through the courts?

We've identified the areas of concern. So, what is the solution that would satisfy everyone?

...
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ...

Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
...
Article 6.

* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
...
Article 10.

* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
...
Article 30.

* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

On the whole, we're moving toward being a civilized society someday. And I have faith in mankind. Discussions like this are grains of sand on a beach. But discussions like this move us in the right direction. I think they're necessary.

I believe I gave my two suggestions above -- one regarding the changes to laws of war to take into account Al Q groups, ...

This from Lawfare might contribute to the discussion: On Due Process and Targeting Citizens.

Now we are back to doing that again in the war on a noun.

Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in [FN26] great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.

Executive Order 12333

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

That is indeed a helpful article. I find persuasive the implicit comparison to a sniper shooting a hostage-taker after negotiations have failed and the risk to the hostages has increased.

The only problem is that I read the article as saying that the government of Yemen, not the government of the United States, had the legal and moral right to remove this danger from their midst. They had tried to do so before.

Underwear-bomb maker believed dead in Yemen strike

CAIRO — A Saudi militant believed killed in the U.S. drone strike in Yemen constructed the bombs for the al-Qaida branch's most notorious attempted attacks — including the underwear-borne explosives intended to a down a U.S. aircraft, and a bomb carried by his own brother intended to assassinate a Saudi prince.

The death of Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri would make the Friday drone strikes on a convoy in the central deserts of Yemen one of the most effective single blows in the U.S. campaign to take out al-Qaida's top figures.

The strike also killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who had been key to recruiting for the militant group, and a Pakistani-American, Samir Khan, who was a top English-language propagandist.

But Christopher Boucek, a scholar who studies Yemen and al-Qaida, said al-Asiri's death would "overshadow" that of the two Americans due to his operational importance to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based group that is considered the most active branch of the terror network.

assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."[1][2] An additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."