Well, there is the post right above yours...

Seriously, there are any number of people are saying that the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy does not have the authority to unilaterally authorize the use of deadly force against a U.S. citizen. Turley implicitly does.

The problem, as bacchys notes, is a serious one. For myself, I am completely comfortable with what both Bush and Obama have done in this regard. There are circumstances in which the president has the choice of letting someone like Anwar al-Aulaqi go on about his business in Yemen - on the basis on his constitutional guarantees - or not.

I favor not.

Bacchys writes as if the issue was only a question of treason. But I would suggest that the president has constitutional war powers, and that they certainly extend into a war zone. And I don't think bacchys would disagree with that. I consider Yemen a war zone, and al-Aulaqi an enemy conbatant, regardless of his citizenship.

And, in fact, that the president has to make this call, and not some local commander or elsewhere up the chain, to be enough constitutional protection in this circumstance.

I also think that when it happens, the information needs to be made public. If voters don't like the way the CINC is doing his job, they can fire him. If the House thinks the CINC was wrong they can impeach him.

But given the nature of this fight, it is simply not practical, in my view, to say that the CINC cannot initiate violence against an enemy combatant that is waging war against the U.S. in hostile territory based on his citizenship.


Edited 1 time by nessus2 09/04/12 11:36.