Once we are in a war, he has vast powers to conduct that war. Since congress authorized the use of force, a declaration of war by any other name, that opens up the killing of people like this guy who are aiding the enemy.
When did Congress authorize the use of force? I am not saying that the President has to have the approval of Congress to engage in military action, but he certainly needs it to go to war. You say he has it. When did this happen?
Before everyone chimes in that it wasn't a declaration of war, there is no exact phrasing of "declaration of war" that is the official version from the Constitution. We have some precedent, from WW2, but even more precedent with korea and vietnam. The president during WW2 knew that we had the German code and every night both he and Churchhill had access to which parts of England were going to be bombed, and they let the bombing happen, without warning the innocent citizens so they could clear out. The precedent of war time actions by a President are quite substantial. Someone fighting for an enemy during war would not be under the U.S. legal system anyway if they were caught on the battlefield.
Was he caught on a battlefield?
I will say, this should be cleared up before it is done again, but I am fine with what we did so far. Two guys I respect Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin, both constitutional lawyers are fine with it, and they are the experts on con. Law. that I trust.
The White House is saying the same thing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cutive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html
The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.
“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.
And all I'm saying is this:
a) The assassination authorized by the President was 'extra-judicial'. That is, it occurred outside of the judicial system. While killing in wartime of enemy combatants (by our military, not our CIA) is considered legal under general conditions (and regardless of citizenship of the enemy), this was not done on the battlefield against an armed enemy. It was not done by our military, but by the CIA. It was not authorized by our judicial system, but by the President acting on his own authority as Commander in Chief.
b) If the President can kill a US citizen on his own authority, and without the consent of Congress or due process, he can kill any US citizen. Period.
I have asked - and you have refused to answer - what is to stop the President from authorizing the assassination of any US citizen, inside or outside the USA? If there is some legal principle that allowed him to kill a known terrorist and enemy of the USA who happened to be a US citizen outside the US, what is it? And how would that principle keep the President from doing the exact same thing inside the USA? And how would it keep the President from assassinating anyone he didn't like?
I understand that Anwar al-Aulaqi (and Samir Khan, another US citizen killed in the same attack) was a very bad person. I am not at all unhappy that he is dead. However, I do not understand the legal authority by which the President can order the assassination of a US citizen without due process. Yes, I completely understand that we're at war and he is the enemy. I also understand that he was not engaged in military action on a battlefield against us at the time he was killed.
I truly believe that you're justifying the action because it killed a bad guy. The problem I have with it is that the ends do not justify the means. If the President can order assassination of US citizens on his own authority, without trial and without due process, then there is NOTHING that can stop him from ordering the assassination of ANY US citizen, inside or outside the country.
I frankly think you're being penny wise and pound foolish. If we grant the President this power today, and in ten years we have a President who starts ordering the assassination of US citizens whom he just doesn't think vote the way he'd like them to, it will be the fault of you and people like you, willing to give away the power reserved to the Judicial Branch alone, because you wanted a bad guy killed today and didn't care how it was done.
