"The Drone Wars" Rebuttal

 

Former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey's recent article, "The Drone Wars" in the Sunday, January 9-10, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal was troubling.  He seemed to conflate the subject with some specific conclusions which re-write, or simply discard, at least some rules regarding government actions during war specifically related to U.S. citizenship, a condition which he termed "irrelevant."

 

U.S. citizenship is far from irrelevant when deciding who is eligible to be put on "approved 'kill lists,'" or even, less finally, imprisoned without a right to judicial review as to their status.  These issues are not without precedent, and one need only look back as far as our own civil war to review their resolutions.  In Ex Parte Milligan and Merryman, the right of U.S. citizens who supported adversarial causes in war to judicial review of their status was clearly laid down.  Putting U.S. citizens on a "kill list" would, of course, be much more troublesome, although the article clearly insinuates that this is justified by the AUMF and our war status.  This is more than disheartening.  It is absolutely frightening coming from a former U.S Attorney General.

 

I am not a lawyer, but neither do I think that background necessary to understand the implications of Mr. Mukassey's "opinions," opinions which are themselves a clear and present danger to our Republic should they meet with no rebuttal.  Is anyone else concerned or should I simply chalk the former U.S. AG's comments up to the peter principle?  Even if I do the later, how can we be sure no one is really listening to him?