Here are a few choice phrases from the article, presented largely without comment, which make my head hurt.
In this new age of drone warfare, probing the constitutional legitimacy of targeted killings has never been more vital
There are contested legal issues surrounding drone strikes
Awlaki’s killing and others like it have solid legal support and are embedded in an unprecedentedly robust system of legal and political accountability
Whatever else the term “force” may mean, it clearly includes authorization from Congress to kill enemy soldiers
Congress as a whole is well aware of the president’s targeted killing program
The Supreme Court has ruled in many contexts that due process does not always demand judicial scrutiny
There is simply no way to wring all potential error from the system and still carry on a war
While the Obama administration can improve its public explanations for targeted killing, its critics have wildly overstated the legal concerns about the practice
There is every reason to think that the government was super careful
Super careful, you guys.
President Harry Truman, for example, received a great deal of advice about whether and how to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it didn’t come from lawyers advising him on the laws of war.
Thank Christ we’ve come so far from those horrible days, when world leaders didn’t have the reassuring presence of legal experts there to assure them that killing millions of foreigners was technically fine as far as the paperwork was concerned.