Arguments That Don't Persuade Me

Kevin Williamson at NR opposes the concept of Presidential assassinations in wartime.  That is certainly a justifiable position, but I don't like this particular justification:

So, set aside the legal questions for a second. The Awlaki case speaks to something even more fundamental than law: Decent nations do not permit their governments to assassinate their own citizens. I am willing to give the intelligence community, the covert-operations guys, and the military proper a pretty free hand when it comes to dealing with dispersed terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates. But citizenship, even when applied to a Grade-A certified rat like Awlaki, presents an important demarcation, a bright-line distinction in our politics.

If Awlaki were to be killed on a battlefield, I’d shed no tears. But ordering the premeditated, extrajudicial killing of an American citizen in Yemen or Pakistan is no different from ordering the premeditated, extrajudicial killing of an American citizen in New York or Washington or Topeka — American citizens are American citizens, wherever they go.

Now, hold on - if Awlaki were in Topeka we would expect the police to arrest him, and they would presumaby have the physical resources to do so (although David Koresh comes to mind as a failed attempt).  The only reason we are thinking about killing Awlaki with a Predator drone is that the US lacks the resources to arrest/kidnap him from the wilds of Yemen.

The comparison doesn't work. 

Comments

[Clarice]

The Yale Law School New and Improved Rules of War

Index:
1. What is war?

[Danube of Thought]

What is war?

War, gentlemen. Jesus had war in both fists! And what is war? War is the mornin' and the evenin' star. It shines on the cradle of the Babe. Hear ye, sinners. War is the inspiration of poets and philosophers. War is the voice of music. I'm talkin' about divine war - not carnal war. The eternal, glorious music maker!

Oh, wait--