nessus2 wrote:
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.


This is not about detention. Quite the opposite.
So, it's reasonable to dispute a President's authority to declare someone an enemy combatant and then detain that person, but it's unquestionable that he has the power to name someone an enemy combatant and kill them?

Seems to me the first step in both is the same:  declaring someone an enemy combatant.  I'll grant you that the traditions of war and our laws give the President broad leeway when conducting a congressionally authorized war to determine who our enemies are, but it's never been unlimited. 

I was among President Bush's critics when it came to Hamdi and Padilla.  Those cases would have been different had they been foreign nationals.  Quirin would have applied, whereas their being Americans put them in a different category than simply enemy combatants.  An American fighting against America is never simply an enemy combatant. 

“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