|
And I don't mean they necessarily oppose death by Hellfire, or utterly oppose such targeting of any US citizen for any reason. Some may not even oppose firing missiles into nations when the authorization to do so is so general as to have almost no limitations.
What upsets many is how this act is justified, and what that means in the future for this country and the rest of the world. There was a hideous logic in the Bush administration that the UN, international law, foreign courts, and generally anything and everything would be recognized as binding authority--so long as it came to justifying or rationalizing what we had done. When it came to constraining our actions, however, very few authorities were recognized as binding, and at times essentially none was recognized.
This goes hand in hand with the idea that laying down any of the expanded powers of the executive since 2001 amounts to a surrender in the war on terror; that the failure to use every means available represents a failure to responsibly punish terrorists and prevent their attacks; that any restoration of lost protections or constraints can only mean retreat and defeat.
This attitude is why the Patriot Act has been extended by this president. This attitude is why extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping continue. This attitude is why Guantanamo won't be closed. This attitude declares that Al Awlaki was killed in the only reasonable way he could be killed, and to impose any further check or due process on his killing would represent a profound weakness and irresponsibility on the part of the president.
I'm surprised to see that view enjoys such wide popularity here.
|