Spencer: U.S. had every right to take out Awlaki

It's really hard to gather up and bury mush.

Those two were vaporized.

Obviously, they can't be *both* mush and vapor. Take your pick.

I wonder how the ACLU feels about all those young men from the Southern States who didn't get proper summons, charges, and trials but who were killed by musket fire and grape shot between 1861-65, to say nothing of the civilian casualties of that era? Do they now propose to remove Abraham Lincoln from the pantheon of American heroes? After all, he did suspend habeas corpus, among other things.

My feelings about the Anwar al-Awlaki killing is that if ANY American administration could have had the Yemenis knock on Awlaki's door with an FBI liason officer in tow to read Miranda rights, clap handcuffs on the militant cleric, and lead him off to a waiting helicopter to start the journey back to the appropriate US jurisdiction for a trial with due process of law, I'm sure it would have been done.

While I'm at it, Arms Merchant, I'm not going to call you names. I respect your position more than you'd ever know. But this is a conflict in which Bush, who is cursed seven times daily, consulted with Congress (including ACLU-endorsed Democrats) to fight, and Obama has inherited it.

But, let me ask you this:

Suppose a shooter enters a large public school and starts killing and wounding people. A policeman comes to answer the call for help, and while cautiously walking around a corner with his pistol drawn, finds himself behind the shooter, who has his weapon raised and firing into the door of a classroom from which screams are coming. Nobody else is in the corridor between the policeman's service revolver and the back of the shooter. Should the policeman take the shot, or, should he call out "Stop! This is the police! You have the right to remain silent..." and risk the shooter turning around to take him out?

This is a very practical question for me. I work in a school where there was a very brazen gang-related stabbing death right in front of the building at the close of the school day once. And there is firepower in the community. Further, a more ordinary kid (high on dope) once assaulted me, trying to choke me (it was before I started having health problems and I was able to throw him down--I'd have lost my job had not a roomful of students given the police the exact same story).

In both the hypothetical school shooting case and the killing of Awlaki, who clearly had influenced and guided the Underwear Bomber, Maj. Nidal Hassan, and others, I tend to agree with the honorable Supreme Court Justice who once observed that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

I, too, give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and Awlaki. I do not see him as a closet Muslim, and I've always told my Birther friends that they'll need to prove that Obama's mother lacked either US citizenship or transmission requirements if Obama was indeed born in Kenya.

Then again, I'm someone who's always maintained that Obama's religion has always been first, last, and always the career of Barry Obama; that if he was a sincere Muslim child while stepson to Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, his adherence to the Rev. Jeremiah's UCC Congregation in Chicago was just a case of using the connection for political gain.

What bothers me about Obama is his long string of associations with known Communists and sympathizers, a press secretary (Anita Dunn) who admires Mao, naming a Troofer for Green Jobs Czar, fighting like a tiger to keep late-term abortion legal and murderous in Illinois, an energy policy that won't allow US companies to drill within 125 miles of the Florida coast while Cuban-Spanish ones are drilling a mere 60 miles from the Keys and Chinese companies a few miles closer to Cuba, a blithe disregard for our out-of-control national debt (which, admittedly, was bad enough when Bush was in office), and a readiness to trample on the consciences of religious colleges that will not include abortion in the range of options available to students (Franciscan of Steubenville, as a case in point; but it'll impact Evangelical schools, too). Add to this Tim Geithner's questionable tax records, Holder's hand in a gun-running scheme to Mexico (probably targeted more at American gun owners than Mexican drug cartels), and refusal to investigate possible voter intimidation in Philadelphia involving the New Black Panther Party. Last of all, as someone with a very personal vested interest in racial peace, I'm bothered by his telling Hispanics that those who'd like some enforcement of immigration law are "our enemies", and his long association with the race-baiting Jeremiah Wright.

If Obama takes out Mullah Omar, I'll cheer. But, the Republicans will probably have to run a combination of thief, cannibal, and security threat before I'll vote for Obama in '012.

Your example of Confederate soldiers, Kepha, is right on target. Should they have been read their Constitutional rights and not fired upon at Shiloh, Antietam or Gettysburg? What about a non-battle situation, say a night raid by Union troops, when Southern soldiers were sitting around a campfire or asleep? Under such non-battle conditions, was it unconstitutional to simply kill them? Of course not. Posing such hypotheticals, I believe, illustrates what I wrote above and that is the continuing huge mistake of not distinguishing between war and crime.

I'm sorry to hear about your dire personal encounter as a teacher. Very glad though you survived in tact. The policeman example you provided, I would contend, would have allowed him to simply take out the would be killer who was firing, no questions asked. But, of course, if you would find yourself before a liberal enough judge and jury, any kind of idiotic ruling would be possible (yes, for any of you liberals out there reading this it would take a liberal mentality 100% of the time in such a scenario to come to a decision inculpating the policeman). Hope you and yours are well.

Whenever I need a good laugh I know where to find it.

The commentators here are brilliant AND funny too!

Kepha

The situation you described is where people are in direct, imminent danger and immediate action is crucial. For all I know, this certainly could be the situation with Al Awlaki.

But that's the point. We don't know. The evidence is secret. We have a generalized idea that Awlaki is a bad guy, and lots of allegations, but no actual evidence that has been made public. OK, he's an enemy combatant. How do we know this, in a war with no uniforms and where all the world is supposedly a battlefield? Who says so? Are they credible? If he's a soldier for al Qaeda, what's his role? Again, we don't know. We must trust the President. We give him extraordinary leeway because, after all, this is war, right?

So when does this war end? And what prevents the Executive from signing an order to vaporize you or me, if we happen to be a political enemy, on much less firm grounds than that which he ostensibly used to designate Awlaki?

Think crime versus war and the rest will start to fall into place. And quit pampering yourself by thinking that merely being a political enemy of the United States will lead to your vaporization. Ain't gonna' happen. So tired of folks who are so concerned with legal rights that they miss the big picture of crime versus war, as you have.

I think you mean "flattering yourself."

Yeah, I'm just a loser worrying about silly things like rights. With a President that has already proven he doesn't hesitate to use armed agents against a competitor of a campaign donor (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/126897/). Some of those guitars might explode; you never know.

No, I'll stick with "pampering." As for the Gibson Guitars raid, yeah, it was dopey and actually has become something of a laughing stock used, quite appropriately I would argue, against the Obama Administration, an administration, I might add, for which I have almost no respect. But no "vaporization" occurred or anything like this in the Gibson Guitar farce.

You're overindulging respecting the al-Awlaki killing because, as I've mentioned several times here at JW, you, and so many others, are not distinguishing between war and crime. For Christ's sake, how many times am I gong to have to mention this? It's becoming tedious to witness loads of folks going all gooey and fuzzy over taking out a real bad guy, who declared war against his own country, because he wasn't treated as a criminal who needed to have his Bill of Rights protections read to him up front like. Damn it. Will you and others finally comprehend that there is a differnce between war and crime? My guess is that this will go over your head. It's gone over a lot of heads.

The Age of Nonsense marches on. No wonder the West is in huge trouble. It's forgotten, speaking in the aggregate, how to think.

....."Far from any battlefield..."?

Tell that to a lower Manhattan resident or office dweller, or anyone in the Pentagon building, or on board any of those aircraft that horrible morning.....and ask him/her what battlefield experience they have after literal War has again been brought to our shores as dramatically as in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, with more attempts which followed and more, undoubtedly, to come.

All of this tut-tutting by such as Ron Paul and the ACLU is sickening.

The Marquess of Queensbury is LHFAO.

"What we are calling for is transparency in the process by which one gets put on "the list" of enemy combatants subject to attack at any time. The President has not seen fit to describe who puts someone on the list and what standard of evidence is required, or produce evidence that clearly shows Awlaki was an actual combatant."

What I think would be justified, and what should be done, is for the US Govt / Obama to NOW reveal the evidence and justification for taking him out. You dont have to be an actual combatant if you are sending killers to do the job for you.

Ron Paul says "No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the ‘underwear bomber.’ But if the American people accept this blindly and casually, that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people whom he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad. I think, what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him, who certainly had done it.”

In the case of Timothy McVeigh the US Govt was in a position to put him on trial. In the case of Awlaki they werent.

In the case of war it is not necessary that the person has personally killed anyone. This is not a civil murder case.

During the second world war there is no evidence that Hitler personally killed anybody, including any Jew. Yet the Allies would have been perfectly justified in taking him out.

He was the guy who gave the orders.

Brooke,

Except for the condescending way you have expressed your thoughts, I agree with most of what you have said. However, I don't agree with your "fits all circumstaces" assertion, of due process under the law. Mr Awlaki had every opportunity to exercise his right of due process and answer the government's charges. He chose not to do so and instead fled to the country of his true allegience. Awlaki was born, raised, educated in this Country and had the documaentation that he was a citizen, but he was hardley an American citizen.

I'll try not to be as condescending as you were to all of us but I suggest that you read The Oath of Allegiance. It conveys that Awlaki was not a citizen of this country but a traitor and yes an enemy combattent. I'm not a judge, or a Constitutional lawyer. I'm a Viet Nam combat "American" Veteran with a little common sense.

You're still not distinguishing between war and crime. Respecting Confederates in Canada planning a raid on St. Albans, Vermont, NYC, etc., the major reason that Lincoln might not have had them killed if possible is because they were on foreign soil, and soil which belonged to the British Empire (a far cry from a country like Yemen). The Trent Affair already had brought the US close to war with Britain and, as Lincoln said early on in the war to his Secretary of State, William Seward, who argued for a war with Britain to rally all America behind such a conflict, "one war at a time." What if such Confederate soldiers were not in Canada but just inside the US border in a secret location that came to be revealed to Union authorities? Would you still insist they should have been treated as mere criminals?

Moreover, you averred that the other Confederate analogies are inapt without explaining why they are. Why are they inapt? For instance, what I wrote above about a night raid by Union troops on a Conferderate camp where men were not even holding their weapons but just sitting around a campfire or even sleeping (which happened on literally hundreds of occasions during the Civil War). Do you really believe that such Confederates had Constitutional rights at such a time and could not have just been shot?

When one declares war, makes war, on the United States, as al-Awlaki did, the Bill of Rights are no longer operative for that person for all intents and purposes as it is for those accused of a crime. War is way beyond crime and falls outside the purview of Constitutional protections accorded those charged with criminal activities.

Although I usually agree with you, Wellington, I believe that you are way off base on this one.

This is not, as you have earlier commented about my position, either an unwillingness or an inability to distinguish between war and crime. It is about using the rubric of war to justify giving one man the power to assassinate any of us by fiat without meaningful oversight.

As happy as I am that Awlaki is dead, to me, this issue actually has less  to do with Awlaki's rights than it does to the rights of the rest of us. If we make it easier for our "Leader" to kill any of us by fiat whenever he believes that we are "an enemy of the state" without guidelines or meaningful oversight, we have to realize that we open the door to a future "Leader" deciding  to apply the "enemy of the state" label not to jihadis but to political opponents or religious or racial minorities. In an era where the Vice President of the United States refers to the Tea Party as terrorists and hostage takers, and the President refers to the opposition party as the "enemy," such concerns are certainly not unreasonable.

In my view, if such a "hit" list is a necessity in this new kind of war then, at the very least, a mechanism and guidelines need to be established for how people get placed on such a list and a mechanism for removing people from that list. A court (modeled on the FISA courts) which would rule on these designations would satisfy me.

Ah, where to begin. First of all, the distinction you draw between "war" and the "rubric of war" is an abstract one, if not a false one. Al-Awlaki was at war with his own country, I would argue, no rubric about it. Yes, this is a judgment call but then so many things in law and war are. Second, I take the silly statements made by Biden and Obama, "terrorists" and "enemies" and all that, as nothing more than political hyperbole. Stupid hyperbole to be sure but nothing that really worries me. Third, why do you think that a member of the judicial branch will exercise better judgment about taking out someone who has declared war on America than will the head of the executive branch? As the Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States observes in its article on war, American courts have taken the position that "in the crucibloe of war constitutional principles can become highly malleable." I would argue for keeping it this way.

BTW, I looked over my comments to you from yesterday and want to express my regret for some strident language directed your way. I offer no excuses. I could have been more diplomatic the way I wrote things.

I think what is in question here is the arbitrary nature of action.

Most people approve of what was done - but not the secretive, selective, arbitrary way it was done.

(Obama got X - GREAT!, he also killed Y - hmm what for, he gave arms to Mexican drug gangs... hmmm, he wanted to give arms to Libyan "freedom fighters" without knowing whether they were also Al Qaida, didnt do anything about the Iranian protestors..)

By secretive I do not mean the secretiveness of the action but the secretiveness of the decision. That leads to unaccountability and abuse of power.

There are many people acting against American Interests. How does he pick and choose who to assassinate and who to actually give aid to? Purely on his poll ratings?

Several people have said that America is at war. It is not only America, it is the west and the entire free world. But who are they at war against (who has declared war against them overtly and covertly?) The Al Qaida? The Taliban?

America and the west have to honestly decide - and name the enemy.

Following your line of legal reasoning, Bemused, unless it could have first been determined that Confederates were actually holding weapons, dispatching them would have been unconstitutional (so much for the many night raids I mentioned). Do you really think Lincoln thought in these terms? Would you have preferred that he had? As another example, it would have been unconstitutional, pursuant to your line of reasoning, to have shelled the Confederate White House in Richmond unless it had first been determined that there were soldiers in there (or Jefferson Davis himself) holding weapons of one sort or another. Really want to argue this one?

Again I submit to you that you are not distinguishing between crime and war. You take up arms against the United States, the Bill of Rights fades away very quickly as it should. Yes, those who take up arms against the US are entitled to prisoner of war considerations but this is very different from treating them as accused criminals with Bill of Rights protections. Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. So glad Lincoln realized that it wasn't. You should be too.

@ PRCS "If Awlaki and UBL were enemy [combatants], what nations did they represent? By what authority did they declare war?"

The answers to that one is simple: - They represent the "Muslim Ummah" (the Muslim Brotherhood), or the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam.

They declare war on the authority of their religion, Islam, whereby Jihad is mandated on the Dar al-harb or the House of war or the Kafirs or non-believers, till they either submit in servitude or be conquered.

They can wage this war by any means they want to. By violence, stealth, deceit, intimidation. They are permitted to lie, deny any wrongdoing if caught, use every weakness of the unbelievers such as their justice system and laws, and even deny their religion when they are weak and under pressure, till they are in a position to establish their own laws and rule.

They do not have a country but then neither have the Kurds, the Al Qaida, the IRA, the Basque separatists, the Shining path guerrillas etc etc.

What distinguishes them from other guerrilla organisations is their overwhelming numerical superiority, their support from their religion Islam and the sympathy of a very large silent majority of their "peaceful" coreligionists.

Bemused, I think that peoples judgments have been clouded by the fact that many feel that in this case the person, namely Awlaki (and his companion), needed to be "taken out".

But justice needs a process. It needs to be transparent and the public need to be able to access the evidence on the basis of the orders.

The department of homeland security, perhaps at the behest of Obama and his leftist and Islamic allies, are trying to tarnish conservatives as potential terrorists.

After all Robert Spencer has been accused of being the inspiration and mentor of the Norwegian terrorist. Sarah Palin has been accused of being the inspiration for the attacker of the judge.

Robert Spencer you approve of Awlaki being taken out, but I doubt if you would approve of Obama taking you out.

The American Thinker has a good article on this issue:

Obama, the Hitman: Killing Due Process

"One of the many unfulfilled aims of the Obama administration has been the criminalization of political opponents via the machinery of U.S. anti-terror statutes and other devices. So far, President Obama and his cronies have stopped at saber-rattling, confronted by an extremely heightened public awareness and growing anger amongst average Americans at the Obama agenda. Many will recall the innumerable statements of regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his call for banning "falsehoods," as well as the infamous DHS reports attempting to tar conservatives as potential terrorists. More recently, the TSA has sought to make all Americans traveling for the holidays into terror suspects, attracting significant public outrage. The direct approach has arguably failed.

But where the direct approach has failed, a more silent approach is poised to succeed. No constitution has an unconditional right to life -- except the U.S. Constitution. In the United States, no man can be deprived of life without due process -- i.e., a trial by a jury of his peers. However, using shady CIA "hit lists" designed to thwart American-born terrorists, President Obama claims the power to capriciously do away with this most fundamental of American freedoms. Through a new clandestine assassination program targeting selected citizens, Obama will void due process. The list of targeted Americans is currently not available to the public. The New York Times and the Washington Post both report that Obama has approved the assassination of U.S. citizens engaged in terrorist acts overseas. U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed pursuant to this new program.

Yes, Awlaki was evil, and his behavior was criminal and treasonous. But before the dust settles and his assassination becomes precedent, a few questions come to mind: Islamic terrorists may be the object, but what happens if this power is selectively turned against political opponents? Is there any accountability? Who decides who is and isn't a terrorist? America cannot allow the precious right to life to fade without a fight. No compromise can be tolerated on a freedom this basic.

Ironically, this highly unconstitutional protocol has been lauded by Republican Americans ever-concerned with the spread of Islamic terrorism. The sentiment among many is one of relief, that finally President Obama takes the threat of Islamic terror seriously. Could this magical change be the salvation of America in the War on Terror?

Obama's habitual actions until the present point speak to the contrary. President Obama gives Miranda rights to foreign terrorists without first attempting to garner information that could save American lives. President Obama delays an investigation of the atrocities at Fort Hood. President Obama posts the TSA playbook online for the all the world to see. President Obama makes strategically damning declarations like "America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam." President Obama appoints officials who publicly advocate Islamic sharia law. President Obama says that the aims of Hamas are fine as long as they are achieved "peacefully." And finally, President Obama has sought to grant foreign enemy combatants not even protected by the Geneva Convention the privileges of U.S. citizens.

And now we are supposed to believe that because President Obama is willing to trash the fundamental right of Americans to due process without so much as an amendment, he is somehow turning up the heat in the War on Terror? This is typical liberal-style "warfare." War becomes a means to gain power at home instead of protecting freedom abroad. ...

...It was Benjamin Franklin who once said, "They that surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety." .. Put simply, if constitutional rights can be removed by mere statute, then they are not rights.

Nothing is more certain than that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power by which we are "safer" today will be our ruin tomorrow...."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/obama_the_hitman_killing_due_process.html

"They declare war on the authority of their religion, Islam, whereby Jihad is mandated on the Dar al-harb or the House of war or the Kafirs or non-believers, till they either submit in servitude or be conquered."

And in the eyes of American and International Law they are 'enemy combatants'?

I suspect your post was facetious.

While I would not be a scholar to any Constitution issues, I would agree with Wellington on this issue. Common sense to this issue (crime and war) are gone. We are involved in a war. Why do people seem to forget that? The laws are man-made. Laws are imperfect. That is why we have the system of checks and balances. That is why we have the judical system. And, Awalki's father already appealed to the court; the court turned him down with the reasoning that it was President's purview to list any person an enemy combatant subject to the court. The system of checks and balances worked!

Wellington, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The legal reasoning set forth in my posts does not lead to the conclusions you posit. The Rules of War permit the unintentional killing of unarmed combatants (Confederates or Awlaki). Neither the Rules of War nor the US Constitution permits the intentional killing of unarmed combatants (Confederates and Awlaki were US citizens).

While the Rules of War may have permitted the shelling of the Confederate Whitehouse to disable C&C, Lincoln never would have signed an Executive-branch-only kill-order naming Jefferson Davis. Such an Executive-branch-only kill-order against a US citizen HAS NEVER BEEN ISSUED BEFORE.

I'm sure you've seen the Reuters report today of the secret Executive-Branch-only panel that can secretly place US citizens on a kill list. Are you nervous now? I am. I want a federal judge between me and Obama's (or Cain's) hit squads.

Thanks for the discussions. I look forward to your posts on other threads.

No apology needed. No offense taken. Almost 40 years as a trial lawyer has resulted in not just a thick skin but an impervious hide.

For the record, I don't believe that al Qaeda or jihad terrorism is a "law enforcement" problem. I do understand the difference between war and crime and I do understand the need in time of war for a malleable interpretation of the Constitution. I have no problem with military tribunals or Guantanamo. I agree with the Supreme Court justice who said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

On the other hand, I don't believe in flushing the Constitution down the toilet just because it is expedient, feels good or "seemed like a good idea at the time." Remember that what we are really talking here is ceding to the President of the United States the power to unilaterally and SECRETLY order someone killed without any standards, guidelines, oversight or meaningful review or any mechanism for how one might ever get off that list in appropriate circumstances. Your willingness to so blithely accept that scares me. Even if it were constitutional, which I seriously doubt, I believe that it is a very dangerous idea and history teaches that down that road lies tyranny.

I am NOT even saying that targeted assassinations should never be permitted under any circumstances. This is not about Awlaki. It's about the rest of us.

What I AM saying is that if we are going to allow targeted assassination we must require meaningful OVERSIGHT. Ideally, the legislative branch would enact legislation which would establish the criteria for determining who should or should not be on the list, the necessary standard of proof, and the creation of a suitable court. The executive branch would be forced to produce evidence meeting that standard to that court to prove to an officer of the judicial branch that the targeted individual qualifies for inclusion on such a list.

Let's not forget that even in the midst of World War II, when we discovered German saboteurs who were American citizens who had been sent here by the Nazis to attack our homeland, the government response was NOT to order the OSS to assassinate them. It was to establish military tribunals to try them.

While the courts may have given the Constitution a very malleable interpretation (such as legitimizing the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II), there is not a single case in which the courts have ever condoned or sanctioned, or even hinted that what was done in Awlaki's case would pass constitutional muster IN THE WAY IT WAS DONE. On the other hand, I do believe that in wartime, my procedure would pass constitutional muster without imposing a significant burden on the Executive Branch.

Thanks AE. You're much more eloquent than I was. I'm just a simple patent attorney, but see the problem the same as you.

Arms Merchant, I have reluctantly concluded that the war ends when the Islamic world is scared enough of us to back off.

BTW, I also do not think we should be trying to rebuild the entire Islamic world, especially when it involves the arrogance of the secular American liberal trying to police the Muslim conscience from the outside.

Thank you for your response, AE. You argued your position well but I still disagree with it. The very fact that you referred to the al-Awlaki killing as a "targeted assassination" indicates to me that you are still not completely thinking in terms of war. In war, you kill the enemy with the reservation of prisoner of war considerations. For instance, in April of 1943 we took out Admiral Yamamoto when we found out that he was going to be in a plane flying to the northern Solomons. Admiral Nimitz wired back to Washington and got the OK to take the plane down, which we did. No legislative involvement. No judicial involvement. No harm to the Constitution. An enemy dead. Ditto for al-Awlaki.

I would also note here that it makes little difference to me if the person who is engaged in war against America is an American citizen or not, just as someone accused of a crime here in America is entitled to certain Bill of Rights protections whether that person is an American citizen or a citizen of some other country. Yes, if we actually apprehend someone engaged in war against the US, then a military tribunal rather than just a firing squad would be appropriate and the way to go, but when apprehension of a person who is engaging in war against America is not possible or only remotely so, then I have no problem with a President ordering him taken out, irrespective of his citizen status.

If the time ever came when we had a President that would abuse his power as Commander-in-Chief in this area, then it would be the function of the legislative and judicial branches to move to quash such an abuse of power. If they didn't or couldn't, it would be an America no longer an America I know. Till then, I'm not going to worry about the Constitution being abused or disregarded. I'll close here by noting that this is a matter that even lawyers can disagree about, as we have.

Thank you for proving my point.
-----------------------------------------
Here is where you proved my point. "If any President abused his power as C-in-C in this area, then it would be the function of the legislative and judicial branches to move to quash such an abuse of power." Really? How? Once you have a President whacking people who disagree with him, it's somewhat unrealistic to expect Congress and federal judges to say no to him and piss him off. Just ask judges in Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Egypt, Libya and in countless other hellholes.

I don't think I proved your point though you think I did. First of all I would contend that a President out of control and whacking off political enemies is so exceedingly unlikely that you're in the realm of high theory here. From killing al-Awlaki, who declared war on his own country, to just taking out folks left and right because of political considerations or just personal animus is quite a stretch. A very, very long stretch. Second, even assuming this might occur, I simply can't accept the notion that Congress in conjunction with the federal judiciary and with the support of the overwhelming majority of the Americna people would at that point be helpless before one man, even if he is President of the United States. I'll sleep comfortably with this confidence of mine while you can tremble for the American Republic because legislators and judges didn't also get in on the action in taking out al-Awlaki.