I don't think it's accurate that "no one would have said one word" about sending a missile up his ass had he been Yemeni, Iraq, or Pakistani.  During the Bush tenure, a lot of words were said about Bush policies naming and detaining enemy combatants outside the theater of war which was roughly defined as Afghanistan, to judge by the criticisms.  The current President was among those critics.

Being an American does make a difference.  The citizens of other nations have their own governments to stand up for them and their rights against our government.  Al Aulaqi's father filed filed for an injunction against the express intent of the U.S. government to kill his son, and it was tossed.  No decisions were made, it was simply punted standing grounds.  Perhaps that was the correct position.  Perhaps not. It seems to me if we are able to try people in absentia they should be able to act otherwise in the courts as well without being present.


I would suggest that this is not the stuff of imperial presidency, but rather practical war fighting in the era of terrorism. This ain't the War of 1812. The US hadzero custodial prospects, so there was no opportunity to apply the rights of citizenship. Al-Aulaqi was engaged in war like operations against this nation and others, and if he was a Yemeni or an Iranian or a Martian no one would have said word one when we sent a missile up his ass. It is inconceivable to me that any president - offered the opportunity to kill such a man in this environemnt - would decline just because he was a US citizen. It would, in my view, be insane to do so. The perfect example of a foolish consistency.Which brings us to the slippery slope argument.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There is no reason to believe that any president would wish to extend this war authority into civil affairs. And, indeed, there are laws against it. The decision was, in fact, subject to judicial notice, and will be again in the future.


The slippery slope might be a logical fallacy, but it's not a legal or political one.  Inquiry into the scope of powers is very much the staple of legal investigation into the powers delegated by the sovereign to Our government. 

It is true this isn't the War of 1812.  It's not WWII or Vietnam, either.  In many ways, the Law of War and our laws don't quite fit the conflict we're fighting, a reality two Administrations have had to grapple with.  But the difficulty doesn't mean anything they do is ipso facto legal.  The government has made efforts to connect drug-trafficking and use with terrorism.  It's not a giant leap to wonder if this power doesn't also apply in Medellin or Mexico City.  It's not much of a slope to slide down. 

“Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear a faithful interpretation of the Constitution, and nobody has any legitimate reason to fear effective and complete protection of civil rights." - Alan Gura