Bacchys:

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.


Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you on this. But it seems to me that in absentia trials are much more likely to be abused than this war power.

You know I'm not that far from you on the "Death of the Republic" theme, and I understand why this seemingly new authority in the executive raises an alarm. It very much should do so. And in that vein and looking at the state of our jurisprudence, the principle of being able to try someone for treason in absentia is just so easily morphed into some other appllication. Remember RICO?

As I said, I understand where you're coming from and your argument has merit. The national political conversation should absolutely include this. It's too bad it won't.

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.


Agreed as to legal investigation. Objection as to trying to connect the first sentence to the second sentence without the proper foundation.

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.


You can wonder the same thing about almost exercise of executive authority. I just don't see the necessary point A to point B argument here that the "slippery slope" inquiry requires. War powers are not police powers, and we have laws about the latter, like posse comitatus.

There's no AUMF fig leaf for Mexico City.