"The best such report in quite a while is Sunday's 3,600-word investigative story in the New York Times about the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al-Qaida operative."

#2 I'm just glad you read both articles and gave the matter serious consideration in light of what they had to say.

#8

"The AUMF authorizes the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, . . . ."

The authorization of "force" in the AUMF is the main legal basis for the president's power to detain and target members of al Qaeda and The Taliban.

In addition, since September 11, Congress, two presidential administrations, and the lower federal courts have interpreted the "force" authorized by the AUMF to extend to members or substantial supporters of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and associated forces."

from your link.

Should we move on? Maybe yes, maybe no. But this is the current effective law and was when al-Awlaki was killed.

#11 Counselors Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman disagree with your opinion, as do many others.

#12
"implausible for the CIA to assert that it needed to keep secret the very question of whether it maintains any information on the subject."

Sounds reasonable. They can say they keep info on a subject without disclosing any vital security info.

"Major blow" sounds like a bit much for some courtroom maneuvering, though.

Cheer leading.... mirrors.... the lame attempts at insult only demean your whatever merit your argument might have. Little as that is.