I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!”

And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.

I think that is 99% true, with the exception of civilians who take up arms against the US.

Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates.

> Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates.

A full scale civil war really is an extraordinary case and is a lot more akin to a regular war than what we are talking about here.

I'm more afraid of someone declaring war on an abstract concept (like the "war on terror") and then using broad powers meant to be used in normal wars between states that have declared combatants than I am of a civil war.

I wonder how that would play out in today's Congress. There is technically no country to declare war on, unless you can declare war on yourself, so they would have to first redefine the United States as two parts. After that is passed, they could declare war on the opposing half. I guess I'm kind of seeing how the Chinese governments got themselves tied up in knots with their continuity of state and all.

I'd imagine that you can declare war on a specific group (that does not have to be defined as a state) like the "confederate states of america" without it having to be a nebulous concept like "terror". But I don't know enough to say for certain.

If we have a declared war between the US and the people (US citizens or otherwise) who are taking up arms against the US, then sure, attack away.

But otherwise, the only remedy should be judicial process against these people: arrests, trial, etc. Otherwise we have a term for it: extrajudicial killing.

Of course, Congress has given the executive branch weird war powers over the past few decades, so legally I'm sure they're in the clear, unfortunately.

I hear the same shit a lot. IRL, and in right wing media. “They don’t seem to get that if they can prosecute Trump, we can prosecute Biden and Hillary for [any of several shaky charges]”

No, no: we do get that. We just think that’s a good thing. If you have the evidence (you don’t, or we’d have seen, like, any of it at all) then by all means, prosecute the absolute shit out of them!

That's the appropriate patriotic response that you'd hope all Americans would give, especially those who have sworn to defend the constitution. But what I've come to realize is that a lot of Americans somehow see it as their patriotic duty to destroy the Federal government, and will support anything that will undermine it, including breaking the rule of law and a scorched earth attack on "liberals" that wish to uphold our form of government. This is the legacy of the Confederate grievance that is still very much alive today.

on a tangent, was the drone operator charged? iirc "just following orders" only goes so far.

No. It seems unlikely that the drone pilot would have all of that information beyond where the target was, that would be necessary to make an informed decision about participating in an extrajudicial execution of an American citizen.

From my experience in manned operations, you're basically only given a target, not the details.

Based on that, I would assume the targeter did not know whom they were targeting. Or they did, knew the orders came from the National Command Authority[1] (Eg. POTUS) and did it anyway. I would have.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority_(Un...

I don't like the killing by a drone (to easy for it to be misused), I am less ok with the killing of his 16-year-old son, and even less so for his daughters killing.

But... It seems he was a member of al-Qaeda, and the "Public Law 107–40 107th Congress Joint Resolution" passed by congress did authorize:

> That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force > against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, > authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on > September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to > prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States > by such nations, organizations or persons.

That does seem to authorize extra-judical killing in this case. I am not really happy about any of this, but since we are talking legalities, this seems to apply.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf