Who was going to impeach them – the Pelosi “Off the Table” Democrats? Who was going to prosecute them – the Obama “Don’t Look Back” Justice Department. Don’t confuse Democrats with people who play to win.

A president can be tried for what he did in office once he leaves office – by whatever means. A Senate trial is not a criminal trial, but if he were to be found guilty on articles of impeachment involving criminal conduct like murder, I expect it would have some effect on a jury.

I hope that he will suffer the consequences where he broke the law according to the first law he broke – the US and our Constitution. Although I understand there are countries where it’s best for Henry Kissinger not to go, the US is going to have to become a whole lot weaker than it is right now – a distinct possibility – before US presidents get hauled to the Hague.

Obama doesn’t have much to worry about domestically.

The Republicans House – composed of way fewer lunatics then than today – impeached Clinton over a blow job. As hackworth1 notes above, here’s a chance for the GOP to get “left” on an issue and build a coalition. Don’t think that Rand Paul doesn’t know that he can’t win without bridge issues like this.

I agree with all of what you say. The worst case scenario is to impeach Obama without the murder of Aulaqi being legally repudiated. Brrr…

The Worst Press In The World Doesn’t know anything about the Constitution. They think politics is a game.

I hope Glenn makes lots of “hay,”but I really hope people join him to raise hell.

I hope to hell the Baggers do jump on this. No Democrat has said a mumblin’ word yet that I have heard expect Merkley.

We need to impeach Obama over this. I don’t care who agrees.

Don’t you think the GOP can handle sugar-daddy duty? Shit, they’re the Sugar Daddy to the 1% Party, although I admit that Bush Daddy was maybe a little too vigorous putting the S&L shysters in jail. The Democrats are supposed to be the Party of the Common Folk. This entire political system is win-win for the 1%.

The military is running our foreign policy, dickhead confirmed that, if nothing else, today.

I don’t agree. First, every president who makes a gross strategic foreign policy error as Obama has with the drones – wait til every pissant group of malcontents has this technology within the next ten years – pins it on someone else. The military is the easiest scapegoat because they can’t talk back in public without ending their careers.

Second, our military is fed up with the Endless War With No Defined Mission. They have been ground up for ten years now to no particular national gain. Obama, moron that he is, tried today to say that the “war” will have an end. Then he tried to put it in terms of time. Any military person will tell that that is stupid. A war is over when the mission is accomplished: Berlin conquered and Hitler gone from power. This was has no mission. Quietly of course, active duty and especially recently-retired military will tell you that Israel has too much say in forming our Middle East policy.

I never heard Bush or anyone around him claim the right to kill an American citizen without any due process. He did it. That’s really bad, but if he had kept it secret, it would only be bad. But he did it and claimed it was legal to do it. That’s an impeachable crime because it legalizes executive murder if not repudiated. It’s also a horrifying mistake, because be sure that President Cruz will use this established legal precedent much more broadly, and Obama’s efforts to soft soap the issue now are insulting.

Our press is the Worst in the World, and that includes especially the “liberal” side. The broad failure to understand that this is the open door to tyranny now in this country means the internet isn’t adding much.

Crime is now 1) prospective and not retrospective and 2) for the little people.

So, you don’t think the Post, Times, CNN, MSNBC, Pelosi and Hoyer and DailyKos are up to the task?

Obama needs to be impeached over this, or President Ted Cruz will use it on you.

I have no doubt that Obama is a callow, shallow incompetent with all of the executive skills that come from having been a legislator – i.e. none. But again, he’s a “Constitutional scholar.” How does such a person get “had” into violating black letter Constitutional law?

Once the government has the right to kill any citizen based on a private, unreviewable decision, you don’t have any rights left that matter. This isn’t a technicality. It is a monstrous crime and a horrendous mistake (assuming that Obama does not want to institute tyranny) and it needs to be addressed.

I’m not certain it is just a public relations gambit. Killing Aulaqi – who cooperated with the US government after 9-11 and therefore never fell under the penumbra of the AUMF – and then constituting himself as judge, jury and executioner of Aulaqi is a gross violation of the law. The Hamdan ruling said that a president can’t use the AUMF to invent legal proceedings. I hope Obama has competent enough legal representation around him – which clearly would not include the reprehensible and liable Holder – to explain to him that he has either placed himself in extreme legal jeopardy or he has given any president legal authority to kill American citizens on a whim. You would expect a “Constitutional scholar” to have seen this before he committed the crime, but as with the rest of American rule of law, Obama like Nixon before considers whatever he does to be legal.