Jacob Sullum notes the fascinating debate going on between Barack Obama and the President of the United States:
Last week a guy named Barack Obama gave a speech in which he expressed appropriate concern about the abuse of government power in the name of fighting terrorism. Too bad he’s not in a position to do anything about it.
Obama, who used to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, quoted James Madison’s warning that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Yet by declaring war against Al Qaeda and its shifting and proliferating allies and offshoots — groups that will not disappear or surrender anytime in the foreseeable future — he has reinforced the rationale for a never-ending military struggle that sacrifices civil liberties on the altar of national security.
Regarding one especially controversial aspect of that struggle, the used of unmanned aircraft to execute people the president identifies as terrorists, Obama incoherently argues that such assassinations are legitimate acts of war and that they are governed by due process (at least when the targets are U.S. citizens). To make matters even more confusing, he says the requirements of due process can be met through secret deliberations within the executive branch.
Obama nevertheless raised the possibility of establishing “a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action,” which he said “has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority.” In other words, the advantage of consulting a court is that it would subject Obama’s death warrants to independent review; the disadvantage is that it would subject Obama’s death warrants to independent review.
