more concerned about lots of other stuff. like . . . dustbunnies.

Yes, because unthinking, visceral reactions are always better than following things through to their logical conclusion.

We are dealing with an interaction between two entities: the government of a nation and ANY citizen of that nation. Those are the categories. We are also dealing with an extraordinary circumstance. This is the point in the decision making process where you can #1 roll up your shirtsleeves do some hard work, or... you can #2 make a really stupid decision with far-reaching consequences.

Option #2 is easier, and "feels" better.

I'm (mostly) with Clod and Flint.

The British tried a number of Irish terrorists in absentia, many were convicted and sentenced to death. At least one (and probably many) of them remarked "They can hang me in absentia too".

I acknowledge that, in this imperfect world, there are times we need to hunt someone down and catch-or-kill them. So be it; but then we must have and follow a judicial procedure.

Shining light on the hill? Or most heavily-armed gangster? I go for the shining light, with a precise little death-ray laser mounted on it.

fuckin A men

We pretty much do for every citizen in the country, and some non-citizens in the country. It's spelled out in mind boggling detail.
Anwar al-Awlaki, however, falls in neither category and as far as I'm concerned has forfeited his citizenship to become a traitor, the enemy.

:lol: I am sure many a bleeding-heart would agree with that statement.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.
Federalist Paper 47; James Madison politically correct liberal pansy

One of the biggest casualties of the war on terror has been the system of checks and balances that worked so well for so long.

I don't see how this is any different than an undeclared war like Vietnam. I don't particularly like it, but history clearly shows that the President has the power to blow things up and do random violent shit in other countries without Congress declaring war. That's what we are talking about here. How does it matter who is being blown up?

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

International law may be another issue, but that only matters if somebody enforces it. Also, if Congress passes a law that says you can't do something specific, like support the Contras, you might get in trouble if you do.

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

It started way before Truman. There has always been threats to the US that the Federal Govenment has had to deal with, the only difference now is we know more about it.


Some people just need killin'.

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

As a result of CIA excesses from Truman through Nixon, legislation resulting from the Church Committee restored some level of control and accountability over the CIA.

As a result of presidential actions by Johnson/Nixon in Viet Nam, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (Resolution).

Since 9/11, those Executive Branch excesses and/or unilateral interpretation of US laws and treaty obligations, have returned.

The Executive Branch alone should not be able to adjudicate on the rights of citizens or what constitutes legal enhanced interrogation as opposed to torture or other abuses we have seen (extraordinary rendition, improper use of National Security Letters by the FBI, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

What would we have done differently? Not support the Shah? At the time is served our national interests.

Right now, I trust the executive branch more than I trust congress, to make rational decisions.