Is anyone actually excited that Hilary will be next president?

[blankslate]

No, I'm just relieved that we'll get more centrist/left of center judges on the SCotUS for the next few years instead of extreme right wing ones. As for Senator Clinton herself. She'd probably reverse her opposition on the TPP but it's not unlikely that the point will be moot for her as I expect President Obama has a decent of being able to slip it through at the last minute before January 2017.



__________________

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No, I'm just relieved that we'll get more centrist/left of center judges on the SCotUS for the next few years instead of extreme right wing ones. As for Senator Clinton herself. She'd probably reverse her opposition on the TPP but it's not unlikely that the point will be moot for her as I expect President Obama to be able to slip it through at the last minute before January 2017.



__________________

Agreed lame duck congress will approve & Obama will sign.

 

[Perknose]

By all means explain to me how a US citizen's citizenship is immaterial as to whether or not the US government can execute him without trial.

Hear me out. This is an existential struggle. We're at war, even if the "quaint" declaration of war between nation states seems to no longer apply. These few "US Citizens" are traitors who have joined our sworn enemies and taken up arms against us. Just as in our Civil War, our government has a right to counter the deadly aggression from those we would still hold are US citizens.

Now, having said all that, I do have major, major qualms about the secrecy that envelopes this process. I do have some "faith" as 'possum put it. I do tend to believe that there is a rigorous internal vetting process. So far, those who have been targeted have been 100% traitors to our country, men bent on doing us the utmost harm in the most venal of ways.

But . . . having said that, I do not think we can ultimately kill our way out of this existential clash of cultures. Despite what I believe is as much care as can be brought to bear from thousands of miles away, the repeated killing of uninvolved civilians -- collateral damage -- sows and spreads an enduring hatred towards us that will not go away. It is counter-productive.

Beyond thewretched fact of unavoidable collateral damage, the killing of these higher ups just makes them martyrs to their cause, and they simply get replaced by the next man up. It's just like 'Nam, we can't kill them all and they will never give up. Body counts are not success, they are a bloody mirage.

We are engaged, like it or not, in a long-term, generational struggle. We will only win by being the better people, by hewing to our principles and being the better cultural and political ideology.

This is why it is IMPERATIVE that we have the COURAGE to step up and accept into our society as many properly vetted Muslims fleeing this bloody, primitive terror as possible, even knowing that a vanishing small percentage of them, or their subsequent US born children will act lethally badly within our borders.

It is ONLY, over time, by the other 99.9% of American Muslims showing their brethren and the rest of the world that, by and large, even with some tumult, people of all faiths and creeds can live together in the United States of American, that we will win this struggle.

There will be losses on our own soil. This is the price WE ALL must pay for any ultimate victory. Don't be shirker, don't be a coward, and don't be a bigot. Uncle Sam and our Western ideals needs you!

If you went on vacation overseas next week what legal impediment would there be that would prevent the president from declaring you a terrorist and executing you? Don't say 'he wouldn't do that', say what would stop him if he wanted to.

If I, or any American citizen, goes over seas and takes up arms in a group dedicated to the utter destruction of our way of life by the most indiscriminately venal means possible, they or I are by definition traitors on the battlefield, and this, whether we call it so or not, is war.

Therefore, we have the right to go after them. Now, as outlined above, whether this is the wisest way to wage this war of ideas or not is an entirely different question.

 

[fskimospy]

Not at all. The process requires that the American citizen be in a nation where we cannot present evidence and get an extradition. There are nations which are by no means allies, but which do honor extradition treaties. Obama is only doing drone strikes in nations which implicitly condone and support Islamic terrorism. Personally I do not believe that the CIA and military advisers would allow the President to kill any US citizen without good evidence of terroristic activity, but I'll concede that is largely faith in the system on my part.

EDIT: I should also add that I do not believe that Obama would attempt to kill any US citizen without good evidence of terroristic activity, nor Hillary nor W nor Bernie nor Trump. More faith.

We could present evidence here in America though, but we do not. I mean we issued an indictment against Bin Laden despite the fact that we couldn't get to him. Why don't we have a similar process with these other individuals? I see zero downside and HUGE upside. I mean surely you can see the extreme danger in entrusting the role of judge, jury, and executioner to one person, no? As for whether or not the actual operators that would carry out the strike would allow the president to do it without good evidence how do you know? I mean the people carrying out the strike aren't the people evaluating the evidence and both answer to the man (or woman!) ordering the strike. There's a huge conflict of interest there.

I like to think that none of the candidates would attempt to kill any US citizen without good evidence either, but the whole point is that the system isn't supposed to depend on the good grace of one individual. Good cops don't plant evidence. Good prosecutors don't railroad people. And yet we know they do.

 

[fskimospy]

Hear me out. This is an existential struggle. We're at war, even if the "quaint" declaration of war between nation states seems to no longer apply. These few "US Citizens" are traitors who have joined our sworn enemies and taken up arms against us. Just as in our Civil War, our government has a right to counter the deadly aggression from those we would still hold are US citizens.

Now, having said all that, I do have major, major qualms about the secrecy that envelopes this process. I do have some "faith" as 'possum put it. I do tend to believe that there is a rigorous internal vetting process. So far, those who have been targeted have been 100% traitors to our country, men bent on doing us the utmost harm in the most venal of ways.

But . . . having said that, I do not think we can ultimately kill our way out of this existential clash of cultures. Despite what I believe is as much care as can be brought to bear from thousands of miles away, the repeated killing of uninvolved civilians -- collateral damage -- sows and spreads an enduring hatred towards us that will not go away. It is counter-productive.

Beyond thewretched fact of unavoidable collateral damage, the killing of these higher ups just makes them martyrs to their cause, and they simply get replaced by the next man up. It's just like 'Nam, we can't kill them all and they will never give up. Body counts are not success, they are a bloody mirage.

We are engaged, like it or not, in a long-term, generational struggle. We will only win by being the better people, by hewing to our principles and being the better cultural and political ideology.

This is why it is IMPERATIVE that we have the COURAGE to step up and accept into our society as many properly vetted Muslims fleeing this bloody, primitive terror as possible, even knowing that a vanishing small percentage of them, or their subsequent US born children will act lethally badly within our borders.

It is ONLY, over time, by the other 99.9% of American Muslims showing their brethren and the rest of the world that, by and large, even with some tumult, people of all faiths and creeds can live together in the United States of American, that we will win this struggle.

There will be losses on our own soil. This is the price WE ALL must pay for any ultimate victory. Don't be shirker, don't be a coward, and don't be a bigot. Uncle Sam and our Western ideals needs you!

If I, or any American citizen, goes over seas and takes up arms in a group dedicated to the utter destruction of our way of life by the most indiscriminately venal means possible, they or I are by definition traitors on the battlefield, and this, whether we call it so or not, is war.

Therefore, we have the right to go after them. Now, as outlined above, whether this is the wisest way to wage this war of ideas or not is an entirely different question.

Right but again, who gets to decide if that American citizen has taken up arms against us?

Like I said before it seems very likely that all the people targeted so far are terrible people who have little reason to complain about their fate. I have no problem with the president ordering the killing of a US citizen if the circumstances demand it. In cases where there is not an immediate danger to the country I do have a big problem with the president being the only person who makes that decision. I also genuinely don't understand the resistance to having judicial review of this kill list. There seems to be literally zero downside.

 

[Perknose]

Right but again, who gets to decide if that American citizen has taken up arms against us?

Like I said before it seems very likely that all the people targeted so far are terrible people who have little reason to complain about their fate. I have no problem with the president ordering the killing of a US citizen if the circumstances demand it. In cases where there is not an immediate danger to the country I do have a big problem with the president being the only person who makes that decision. I also genuinely don't understand the resistance to having judicial review of this kill list. There seems to be literally zero downside.

I think the downside, as they see it, is that you have to present the evidence that you have, which reveals sources, and also, apart from direct connections it gives our enemies, can be mined by them to ultimately reveal in other ways how we know what we know.

Finally, the bad guys would know, by dint of who had been "convicted" and who hadn't, which of their commanders were still safe from attack, and thus free to have much wider latitude to act.

In this information age, information itself is one of the most powerful weapons.

Now, I'm not saying that, on balance, I endorse this current approach, I'm simply attempting to answer your question.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the downside, as they see it, is that you have to present the evidence that you have, which reveals sources, and also, apart from direct connections it gives our enemies, can be mined by them to ultimately reveal in other ways how we know what we know.

Finally, the bad guys would know, by dint of who had been "convicted" and who hadn't, which of their commanders were still safe from attack, and thus free to have much wider latitude to act.

In this information age, information itself is one of the most powerful weapons.

Now, I'm not saying that, on balance, I endorse this current approach, I'm simply attempting to answer your question.

No, I appreciate your response, no worries! Why couldn't this court and its proceedings be secret like the FISA court though?

 

[Jhhnn]

Right but again, who gets to decide if that American citizen has taken up arms against us?

Like I said before it seems very likely that all the people targeted so far are terrible people who have little reason to complain about their fate. I have no problem with the president ordering the killing of a US citizen if the circumstances demand it. In cases where there is not an immediate danger to the country I do have a big problem with the president being the only person who makes that decision. I also genuinely don't understand the resistance to having judicial review of this kill list. There seems to be literally zero downside.

Please. Implementation of foreign policy falls to the Executive branch & exists within the framework of the Constitution & the Law. This is obviously in that realm & not the realm of the judiciary at all. The President sits atop a vast network of intelligence gathering, foreign & domestic, along with having a huge team of advisers behind his actions.

The very structure of it tells us that what we need most is a President who uses force only after a great deal of consideration. I can't see Trump fitting that definition. Hell, for all we know, he clearly has the kind of temperament where he might wake up in the morning & decide to drone some asshole who slighted him in the same way he bans news organizations from covering his campaign.

 

[Perknose]

No, I appreciate your response, no worries! Why couldn't this court and its proceedings be secret like the FISA court though?

Well, I'm just not sure that would be better. I believe you'd agree that some of the results of the FISA court have been Orweillian, to say the least.

As I (dimly) understand what we're told is the current process, the President and all the relevant actors in the military and civilian intelligence sit down and go through, again, what we're told is a rigorous vetting process.

So, our President, elected by all the people, is at the apex of this process. I'm not quite sure it would be better to have an appointed judge, not necessarily well versed in national security matters, be the final arbiter, especially if it were secret like FISA is.

But . . . my main point in this discussion is that I believe we can't really kill our way to victory. In fact, I tend to believe that is counter-productive. This "clash of cultures" is a generational, long-haul set match, and our best weapon is nurturing a strong, vibrant, and relatively progressive and decently accultured American Muslim community as a counterpoint and beacon to Muslims elsewhere which can give the lie to their lie that we are the enemy of Muslims.

I believe the front line of this battle, therefore, is here in the US. And, make no mistake, there will be casualties, our own civilian casualties as there is no denying that there will be a tiny percentage of the unstable and disaffected, no matter how good we vet.

Radical Muslims seem to make no distinction between civilians and combatants. We must have the courage to accept this reality, and faith in our institutions and culture to prevail. Because, again, we simply can't kill our way out of this. Doing so only spreads and deepens and promotes further violence.

Uncle Sam needs US!

 

[fskimospy]

Please. Implementation of foreign policy falls to the Executive branch & exists within the framework of the Constitution & the Law. This is obviously in that realm & not the realm of the judiciary at all. The President sits atop a vast network of intelligence gathering, foreign & domestic, along with having a huge team of advisers behind his actions.

Foreign policy is dealings with other nations, not decisions about whether or not to execute US citizens who happen to be residing in a different nation. Can you describe what aspect of this specifically changes this to foreign policy? It appears that the administration has relied on the statement that these individuals present an 'imminent threat' as a reason to ignore the 4th amendment, not that they were part of a greater foreign policy regime.

The very structure of it tells us that what we need most is a President who uses force only after a great deal of consideration. I can't see Trump fitting that definition. Hell, for all we know, he clearly has the kind of temperament where he might wake up in the morning & decide to drone some asshole who slighted him in the same way he bans news organizations from covering his campaign.

Well that seems like a problem with the structure then, doesn't it? There's someone who could plausibly become president that you think may execute US citizens on a whim based on this authority. Isn't that a really good reason to reign in this authority?

 

[bshole]

But . . . my main point in this discussion is that I believe we can't really kill our way to victory. In fact, I tend to believe that is counter-productive. This "clash of cultures" is a generational, long-haul set match, and our best weapon is nurturing a strong, vibrant, and relatively progressive and decently accultured American Muslim community as a counterpoint and beacon to Muslims elsewhere which can give the lie to their lie that we are the enemy of Muslims.

Nailed it!

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I'm just not sure that would be better. I believe you'd agree that some of the results of the FISA court have been Orweillian, to say the least.

As I (dimly) understand what we're told is the current process, the President and all the relevant actors in the military and civilian intelligence sit down and go through, again, what we're told is a rigorous vetting process.

So, our President, elected by all the people, is at the apex of this process. I'm not quite sure it would be better to have an appointed judge, not necessarily well versed in national security matters, be the final arbiter, especially if it were secret like FISA is.

Would you say the same thing about other 4th amendment activities? I mean by that logic wouldn't the police commissioner be a better person to determine if a search of a house was warranted rather than a judge? Warrants or judicial authorizations like FISA aren't intended to determine what the right course of action is, they are there to filter out the objectively unreasonable requests for searches/killings/whatever. Just the simple act of having to justify an act to a third party is a substantial check on abuse, even if that third party is quite pliant like FISA.

Also, what government is going to not say their process is rigorous? I mean it's not like they are going to put out a press release that says 'We have no idea if we should have blown that guy up but YEE-HAW, didn't you see that sweet explosion!?'

But . . . my main point in this discussion is that I believe we can't really kill our way to victory. In fact, I tend to believe that is counter-productive. This "clash of cultures" is a generational, long-haul set match, and our best weapon is nurturing a strong, vibrant, and relatively progressive and decently accultured American Muslim community as a counterpoint and beacon to Muslims elsewhere which can give the lie to their lie that we are the enemy of Muslims.

I believe the front line of this battle, therefore, is here in the US. And, make no mistake, there will be casualties, our own civilian casualties as there is no denying that there will be a tiny percentage of the unstable and disaffected, no matter how good we vet.

Radical Muslims seem to make no distinction between civilians and combatants. We must have the courage to accept this reality, and faith in our institutions and culture to prevail. Because, again, we simply can't kill our way out of this. Doing so only spreads and deepens and promotes further violence.

Uncle Sam needs US!

I basically agree. I feel that there are some people who probably should be killed but I share your concern that we will take that path far to easily because it seems like the simplest way.

 

[Perknose]

Would you say the same thing about other 4th amendment activities? I mean by that logic wouldn't the police commissioner be a better person to determine if a search of a house was warranted rather than a judge? Warrants or judicial authorizations like FISA aren't intended to determine what the right course of action is, they are there to filter out the objectively unreasonable requests for searches/killings/whatever. Just the simple act of having to justify an act to a third party is a substantial check on abuse, even if that third party is quite pliant like FISA.

I take your point. My best guess from the cheap seats is that the intelligence community's reflexive reason for not submitting stuff to any third party is they're deathly afraid of their intel escaping into the wild.

I basically agree. I feel that there are some people who probably should be killed but I share your concern that we will take that path far to easily because it seems like the simplest way.

Yeah, I'm not against all drone strikes, but I really do think there are hugely counter-productive downsides to many, if not most, of them -- the so called collateral damage and the illusion, Vietnam body-count style, of progress.

It's most decidedly not where we should be concentrating our efforts. Every time we meddle militarily in the Middle East, the one thing we do is create more enemies with our damage and confirm to the broad populace the radical's propaganda that we are "Crusaders" bent on destroying/subjugating Muslims. That is why ISIS provokes us, in every way they can, to attack. It plays right into their narrative.

 

[DrPizza]

hillary is going to be much worse than obama, much, much, much worse.

So... you're saying "pretty good, compared to George W Bush, but not nearly as good as Obama. Somewhere in between."

 

[werepossum]

We could present evidence here in America though, but we do not. I mean we issued an indictment against Bin Laden despite the fact that we couldn't get to him. Why don't we have a similar process with these other individuals? I see zero downside and HUGE upside. I mean surely you can see the extreme danger in entrusting the role of judge, jury, and executioner to one person, no? As for whether or not the actual operators that would carry out the strike would allow the president to do it without good evidence how do you know? I mean the people carrying out the strike aren't the people evaluating the evidence and both answer to the man (or woman!) ordering the strike. There's a huge conflict of interest there.

I like to think that none of the candidates would attempt to kill any US citizen without good evidence either, but the whole point is that the system isn't supposed to depend on the good grace of one individual. Good cops don't plant evidence. Good prosecutors don't railroad people. And yet we know they do.

If I understand the process, professionals in the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, NSA, and the military intelligence agencies develop the list, and the President acts as the judge - fitting as this is a life and death decision as an act of war, NOT an act of criminal justice. I did not vote for Obama either time, but I have some faith that he does not lightly take such decisions. Nor do I believe that the various professionals make such recommendations without significant evidence and deliberation. By contrast, I have absolutely zero confidence in any secret court. ANY secret court. That is the very antithesis of an open and free society.

As far as presenting evidence and issuing an indictment, those are appropriate for a civilian court of law. If we are considering a targeting killing, that cannot fall under any civilian court of law; there is no possible due process. No chance to confront your accuser, no chance to present exculpatory evidence, no chance to argue mitigating factors at sentencing, no chance at appeal. A civilian court proceeding under those conditions can only be a travesty of civilian justice. A targeting killing is inherently an act of warfare, period, and I believe it is appropriate to conduct it under those rules. The military decides on the target, then decides whether that target is a legitimate target for lethal force under the rules of warfare, and then the President makes the ultimate decisions not only how and when to take out that target, but also whether the person is the appropriate target and whether the person is an appropriate target for warfare. The President has that killing on his or her soul, and in the end is accountable to the world as well as to the American people. If an American drone takes out someone, we all know exactly who made that call. To my mind, that is infinitely preferable to a judge (especially an anonymous judge) making the decision and the President or military merely ordering it done. I don't think that would be more accountable, I think it would be less accountable.

 

[Jhhnn]

Foreign policy is dealings with other nations, not decisions about whether or not to execute US citizens who happen to be residing in a different nation. Can you describe what aspect of this specifically changes this to foreign policy? It appears that the administration has relied on the statement that these individuals present an 'imminent threat' as a reason to ignore the 4th amendment, not that they were part of a greater foreign policy regime.

It's foreign policy because it does not occur within the jurisdiction of the US. You have yet to offer any plausible argument as to why we should treat a US citizen differently than a foreign national when they're engaged in armed insurrection against us & against the govt of the country where they reside & which we support.

I mean, what are our rights in a foreign jurisdiction, anyway, other than for our govt to come to our aid should we need it? Other than that, we have no greater rights than the locals. So when the Yemeni govt asks for our help against terrorists, any terrorists, we oblige them.

Well that seems like a problem with the structure then, doesn't it? There's someone who could plausibly become president that you think may execute US citizens on a whim based on this authority. Isn't that a really good reason to reign in this authority?

Donald Trump is not now and never has been "plausible" as POTUS other than among a very small % of the electorate. Trump is just a bad joke that spun out of control for the Repubs, a symptom of the fact that a fair % of the human race is just dying to be conned. Hell- that's why they vote Repub in the first place.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think the concern over radical islamism affecting daily life in the US is way overblown. The contribution that religion has to extremist violence is felt to be small anyway (most of it is just run of the mill political strife more than true religious zealotry). People here should be way more worried about their diabetes, obesity, heart disease and cancer than worrying about some Syrian immigrant taking them out.

 

[fskimospy]

It's foreign policy because it does not occur within the jurisdiction of the US. You have yet to offer any plausible argument as to why we should treat a US citizen differently than a foreign national when they're engaged in armed insurrection against us & against the govt of the country where they reside & which we support.

I mean, what are our rights in a foreign jurisdiction, anyway, other than for our govt to come to our aid should we need it? Other than that, we have no greater rights than the locals. So when the Yemeni govt asks for our help against terrorists, any terrorists, we oblige them.

That's not how US law works. I don't have to tell you why the president should treat these individuals differently than foreign nationals, you have to explain why the 4th amendment no longer applies.

Donald Trump is not now and never has been "plausible" as POTUS other than among a very small % of the electorate. Trump is just a bad joke that spun out of control for the Repubs, a symptom of the fact that a fair % of the human race is just dying to be conned. Hell- that's why they vote Repub in the first place.

Who cares? If not Trump then someone else.

 

[Vic]

Right but again, who gets to decide if that American citizen has taken up arms against us? .

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[compuwiz1]

Enough of this joke! Where are the real candidates for president? Right now I see shit or shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's not how US law works. I don't have to tell you why the president should treat these individuals differently than foreign nationals, you have to explain why the 4th amendment no longer applies.



Who cares? If not Trump then someone else.

I already explained it. It's not about "person". It's about "place".

Constitutional protections don't apply to anybody outside our borders regardless of their citizenship. They particularly don't apply to American citizens engaged in armed insurrection against friendly govts.

The whole discussion is a sidetrack, anyway. It's not like president Trump would refrain from droning anybody, is it? Hardly. It's not like Congress will step up & attempt to limit the President's actions, either.

I have very deep misgivings about the drone war in general but the notion that we should draw the line at American citizens is bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

I already explained it. It's not about "person". It's about "place".

Constitutional protections don't apply to anybody outside our borders regardless of their citizenship. They particularly don't apply to American citizens engaged in armed insurrection against friendly govts.

That is false. You are protected by the Constitution as a US citizen no matter where you are in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

So again, why does the 4th amendment not apply?

EDIT: And isn't this quote from the ruling interesting in light of this discussion?

"The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government."

The whole discussion is a sidetrack, anyway. It's not like president Trump would refrain from droning anybody, is it? Hardly. It's not like Congress will step up & attempt to limit the President's actions, either.

I have very deep misgivings about the drone war in general but the notion that we should draw the line at American citizens is bullshit.

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should draw the line at American citizens. Who do you think is saying that?

 

[Jhhnn]

That is false. You are protected by the Constitution as a US citizen no matter where you are in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

So again, why does the 4th amendment not apply?

EDIT: And isn't this quote from the ruling interesting in light of this discussion?





I haven't seen a single person argue that we should draw the line at American citizens. Who do you think is saying that?

That's bogus. First off, it was you who suggested that foreign nationals be treated differently than citizens wrt terrorism abroad in post #143.

Your court case doesn't apply either because nobody here has suggested that suspected terrorists not be afforded the full protections of our legal system once they're apprehended & brought to this country regardless of their citizenship.The catch is that they must first be apprehended, an impractical matter in some parts of the world. That's why the terrorists are in those parts of the world in the first place, to avoid apprehension. We can either leave them alone, a cancer in their host countries, or we can help kill them.

 

[fskimospy]

That's bogus. First off, it was you who suggested that foreign nationals be treated differently than citizens wrt terrorism abroad in post #143.

Yes, foreign nationals should be treated differently because they don't have the constitutional protections that US citizens have. That's my whole point, in fact.

Your court case doesn't apply either because nobody here has suggested that suspected terrorists not be afforded the full protections of our legal system once they're apprehended & brought to this country regardless of their citizenship.The catch is that they must first be apprehended, an impractical matter in some parts of the world. That's why the terrorists are in those parts of the world in the first place, to avoid apprehension. We can either leave them alone, a cancer in their host countries, or we can help kill them.

My court case explicitly applies, as SCOTUS ruled that US citizens abroad have constitutional protections while abroad. How on earth does it not apply? You would be far better off arguing that because Al-Awlaki was participating in armed conflict against the US that he made himself a legitimate military target. Arguing that our rights disappear as soon as we get on a plane is just factually wrong.

All that aside, I feel like I should remind you yet again that literally no one is arguing we should leave them alone. What is being argued is the legality of the procedure for which we determine who we strike and who we don't.

 

[fskimospy]

If I understand the process, professionals in the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, NSA, and the military intelligence agencies develop the list, and the President acts as the judge - fitting as this is a life and death decision as an act of war, NOT an act of criminal justice. I did not vote for Obama either time, but I have some faith that he does not lightly take such decisions. Nor do I believe that the various professionals make such recommendations without significant evidence and deliberation. By contrast, I have absolutely zero confidence in any secret court. ANY secret court. That is the very antithesis of an open and free society.

I am also confident that Obama takes this responsibility seriously. I am not confident that every president in the future will, however. Also, you're going to have to help me understand this. You have no problem with a group of intelligence officials deliberating in secret about who to kill and who not to, but you think that courts deliberating in secret about the exact same thing are somehow the very antithesis of an open and free society? That doesn't make any sense.

As far as presenting evidence and issuing an indictment, those are appropriate for a civilian court of law. If we are considering a targeting killing, that cannot fall under any civilian court of law; there is no possible due process. No chance to confront your accuser, no chance to present exculpatory evidence, no chance to argue mitigating factors at sentencing, no chance at appeal. A civilian court proceeding under those conditions can only be a travesty of civilian justice. A targeting killing is inherently an act of warfare, period, and I believe it is appropriate to conduct it under those rules.

Due process does not require those things in all circumstances, as amply shown by case law. There is no need for any court operating under those conditions, so you don't have to worry about that. So considering that, do you have any further objections to judicial review?

The military decides on the target, then decides whether that target is a legitimate target for lethal force under the rules of warfare, and then the President makes the ultimate decisions not only how and when to take out that target, but also whether the person is the appropriate target and whether the person is an appropriate target for warfare. The President has that killing on his or her soul, and in the end is accountable to the world as well as to the American people. If an American drone takes out someone, we all know exactly who made that call. To my mind, that is infinitely preferable to a judge (especially an anonymous judge) making the decision and the President or military merely ordering it done. I don't think that would be more accountable, I think it would be less accountable.

This also doesn't make any sense. Judges authorize action the president has already said he wants to take, they are not ordering that action be taken. The accountability is exactly the same in both circumstances as the president is always the one making the call and everyone knows it.

I have to say I find it very odd that someone who is so suspicious of the president using the IRS or other entities to attack their political enemies is fine with that same president literally killing his enemies without any oversight.