[piercehawkeye45]

I apologize for the late response. I have been busy.

Originally Posted by Lampligher

First, I believe it was a fundamental mistake to declare "war"
on a nebulous group (Al Qaeda) because it leads to exactly
what you stated: "similar extreme organizations".
The consequences are a never-ending "war"
... who is going to sign a document of surrender to bring this "war" to a close ?

Yes, that argument shows just how complicated and subjective the issue is. On one hand, it would be more transparent and objective if the scope of the 'war on terror' was the destruction and dismantling of certain terrorist groups (Al Qaeda). On the other hand, terror and resistance groups are very fluid and counter-terrorism also needs to be fluid to appropriately respond to threats. For example, if we declare war on GroupA and five years later, GroupB is a big threat while GroupA fell out of importance, would we need to get a new declaration of war on GroupB? I would personally prefer the fluid option.

Then there is another question of the government powers associated with the declaration of war but I really don't feel like getting into this right now because it is a tangent.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Second, more and more it is being interpreted to have given unprecedented powers to the President.
... who or what is going to assure "discipline among the executive branch" ?

Even though the executive branch has been given unprecedented powers, the president is still on a leash. The article talked about this and admitted that it is a potential problem. The way I interpreted the current way of doing things is that president can make decisions without congressional and judicial approval but congress and the supreme courts can take away that power at any time.

To me, if we assume congress and the supreme court are incompetent, the most effective check right now is the media. If the president goes down a slippery slope it should be reported, putting pressure on congress to repeal the presidential powers.

Third, I believe we base our entire form of government on that aspect of the Constitution
just the opposite of the idea that it "should not protect US citizens..."
The Constitution is the primary protection of the minority,
and the individual, from the emotional wiles of the majority.
... if not the Constitution then who/what will provide that protection ?

I agree with this but I don't think it be so absolute. Yes, the Constitution protects minorities as it should. If a citizen has an unpopular opinion (neo-Nazi or communist), the Constitution does a great job at protecting that citizen. That protection allows non-mainstream views to spread and be discussed, which I feel is important for any free society.

Yet, I believe there are limits of how far that protection goes. I do not believe the Constitution should protect citizens in every situation. If there is a very extreme case where a citizen, al-Awlaki for example, is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person, I don't see the reason why the Constitution should protect them in the same why I don't believe the Constitution should protect an American citizen that joined Nazi Germany in WWII.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

OK, so much for my back and forth.
... I am interested in how you view the content of the article in your link... if you care to expand on it.

Honestly, not really. I feel this is an issue that has no right answer. On one side, it is important that all executive powers are checked in one way or another. This prevents the president from going down a slippery slope and attacking citizens that should be protected by the Constitution. On the other side, to be effective, counter-terrorism needs to be fluid and efficient, and getting congressional and judicial approval greatly slows down this process and can allow people actively plotting against the US to survive and escape possible death.

I personally believe that counter-terrorism should be fluid and efficient, at the sacrifice of congressional and judicial review for every decision, but I also believe that the president needs to be kept on a leash. There should be a thorough investigation after every attack, even more so on American citizens, that forces the executive branch to justify every decision. That way they can make quick decisions in the name of national security but it also forces them to make sure they can justify their decision. If they can't justify it, their powers should be taken away.

Is this realistic? I have no idea.