I agree with Bernard Finel, who agrees with Fabius Maximus, who titled his blog post "Code red! The Constitution is burning."
This is about the President going to court to confirm that he has the right to order the assassination of US Citizens who he thinks are aiding and abetting our enemies.
Depending on the verdict of our Courts and the success of our assassins, future historians might say the second American republic died this year. You’ll miss the Constitution when it’s dead (most of you). Not tomorrow, or next year. But eventually. How will you explain this time to your children or grandchildren.(This actually sounds like the writing of one of my students at National War College.)
I’ve mentioned this before, but it is worth revisiting. The issue is specifically about New Mexico-born, radical Islamist cleric Nasser al-Awlaki. If he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies — and he perhaps is — then charge him with treason. Issue an arrest warrant. Try to apprehend him, and if in the process of a good faith effort to arrest him, he’s killed, then so be it. I am not making a radical civil libertarian argument. I am simply arguing that there needs to be a process — an open process subject to oversight and judicial review before you kill an American citizen.The Constitution is too important to let executive power erode it.
Yet, my position, that I think by any reasonable assessment is balanced and moderate is somehow outside of mainstream opinion. Very Serious People in Washington seem to feel that actually having a public, reviewable process is an unreasonable constraint on presidential power.
Regards — Cliff