Foreign Affairs
Marc Thiessen notes that State Dept. legal adviser Harold Koh justifies the deadly Predator drone strikes via the congressional Iraq War resolution (AUMF). But, as several others (including the UN, the ACLU, and former Bush officials) have observed, the victims of the drone strikes had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Yet the terrorists could be targeted, as John Yoo, among others have maintained, under the President's Article II powers--an expansive argument Koh has rejected. Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter, raises the questions, "In a few years, when the situation in the war against terrorism has stabilized, will there be calls for the disbarment of the Obama lawyers who authorized these strikes and criminal investigations of the CIA officers who carried them out? Will Harold Koh join John Yoo and other Bush lawyers in the left's hall of infamy?"
For some background, see my previous post on this issue.
It may have been said elsewhere, but I think the logical thing is to take international law vis a vis piracy on the high seas--which states that any state may take action--and apply it to terrorists (with the caveat that approval of the host nation must be had).
Terrorists are just like pirates--non-state actors whose very existence brings no benefits to the stability of the international structure and many disadvantages, and thus are fit to be dealt with when found.
And then after we apply the traditional laws of piracy to terrorists, perhaps we can apply them to pirates. I hear Walmart may have a fresh supply of backbones coming in anytime now....