I haven't read much of Greenwald in many years. I got turned off by his writing and argument style long ago.

I'm not simply dismissing him because of that paragraph cited by driftglass. I'm using that as an example of why it's not worth my time to dissect his arguments and to illustrate why I don't read him.

YMMV.

But to get back closer to the topic brought up by lincoln, to start a argument by saying that the "law is crystal clear" and it was "conclusively decided" is ridiculous. Nothing in the law is absolute under every circumstance for all time. We know this. He should know this. Legalistic arguments like this are little better than religion. His argument style forces the reader to accept his premises and see no shades of gray. It's not persuasive to me even if he may have the better side of the argument on the merits.

Clearer?

Does that make me an apologist for Obama? I don't think so, but YMMV there too.

To beat a dead horse some more, I'll say again:

The way to end these questions about the terrible drones and whether Obama can kill Americans is to understand that that authority is based on the AUMF. End the AUMF or rein it in, and the issue goes away.

No President is ever going to say that the US military cannot ever be used to kill Americans without a trial. And if s/he does say that, s/he's lying. If you don't accept that, you don't know the history of the Whiskey Rebellion, the US Civil War, Little Rock, and on and on.

http://www.nytimes.c...day/big/0925.html

FWIW.

I think I'm about done on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.