nessus2 wrote:

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?
I don't agree with trial in absentia, either.  It violates the Sixth Amendment, imo, if nothing else.  But the courts buy into it, so their insistence on al Aulaqi being present to ask for an indictment seems a bit...convenient.

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

Dismissing concerns that there aren't limits on this power as slippery slope ignores that such concerns are the norm when questioning the scope of an asserted power.  You don't have to like al Aulaqi or bemoan his death to wonder if this really a Good Idea for the American people to let their President do.


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.


Yemen isn't mentioned in the AUMF, and Mexico City isn't excluded.  If it's a global grant of power to wage war, which is what both the Bush and Obama Administrations have asserted, being in Mexico City isn't a protection. 

“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