Skip to main content

View Diary: Eugene Robinson on Assassination by Remote Control (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, I think Hamdan is squarely on point. (0+ / 0-)

    It tells us that the AUMF triggers the war powers and grants the President the power to wage war including all the incidents thereto (which is how they held that the President had the power to detain).

    The international law angle is interesting, especially for those of us that are outside looking in to the community.  A few thoughts:

    - The actions have to be legal under international law as construed by US courts.

    - That said, this is one of those odd areas that are non-justiciable legal questions.  A court almost certainly won't interpose itself between the President and battlefield operations, so there probably won't.

    - I'm a small-d democrat, so my view is that we are bound exclusively by those treaties which we have ratified.  Intl law jurists, on the other hand, treat all manner of things that aren't subject to the democratic process - like opinions of the ICRC, opinions of jurists and professors, UN Gen Assembly resolutions - as binding.  This strikes me as deeply undemocratic.  What I think is oddest of all is the lack of meta analysis in international law.  What is it, in what sense can it be seen as "law," how is it consistent with democracy and how it can be legitimate in the absence of democratic ratification, etc.  I haven't read too much international law, but I've rarely come across much that gets to these questions.  (that's not to say it's not out there, though)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site