The drone white paper sparked a debate.

[ProSense]

The outrage over targeting Americans overseas who take up arms against the United States is based largely on a set of assumptions, hypotheticals and incomplete information. There isn't a string of victims only the killing of one terrorist, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, which is cited over and over again.

Even the ACLU's "chilling" claim is based on the premise of the administration's argument and it's implications, not a series of real actions.

The Justice Department’s White Paper on Targeted Killing

<...>

The 16-page white paper (read it here) is said to summarize a 50-odd page legal memo written in 2010 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to justify the addition of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the government's "kill lists." That legal memo is one of the documents the ACLU is seeking in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Needless to say, the white paper is not a substitute for the legal memo. But it's a pretty remarkable document.

<...>

My colleagues will have more to say about the white paper soon, but my initial reaction is that the paper only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government's central claim. Even if the Obama administration is convinced of its own fundamental trustworthiness, the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president—and every "informed high-level official" (!)—in every future conflict. As I said to Isikoff, that's truly a chilling thought.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing

This is a debate about precedent, but nothing can be decided until more information is revealed. No matter how heated the debate gets, the facts are still: the killing of one terrorist, an existing justification, and incomplete information (preventing Congress and organizations like the ACLU for making a definitive indictment of the justification.

From Senator Wyden's statement

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

Beyond that precedent, it appears that the questions are designed to clarify the process and, primarily, to ensure that it's actually targeting people who take up arms against the U.S.

Members of Congress are demanding the full opinion, the basis for the white paper.

<...>

Both Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the administration should give their committees the full opinion. Mr. Rogers said he agreed with the rationale for killing Mr. Awlaki, but called it “a bit ridiculous” that the memo had been withheld from lawmakers.

<...>

Some legal scholars said Tuesday that the Justice Department document does not provide enough information to permit a full assessment. Officials have said the Awlaki memorandum includes about 30 pages describing intelligence said to link him to attacks But the white paper lacks such context for its analysis.

Steve Vladeck, an American University law professor who specializes in national security issues, said the discussion engendered by the document obtained by NBC bolstered the case for disclosing the real memo.

“The more general the justification, the less convincing it is going to be,” he said. “So the ultimate problem with the white paper is that it cannot do what it needs to do, which is explain why in the case of Awlaki the United States government thought it literally did not have a choice.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/obama-slow-to-reveal-secrets-on-targeted-killings.html

Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856

There is going to be a determination, and it will include how the U.S. brings justice to Americans who take up arms against the United States. What's the process for identifying such terrorists? What's the course of action?

There are always comparisons to Bush, but he was roundly criticized for inaction after the August 2001 memo.

There are people criticizing the administration for its response to Benghazi, wanting to know if warning signs were ignored.

It's doubtful that anyone wants the administration to ignore those (meaning not having a process in place to identify and bring to justice), citizens or non-citizens, who are actively plotting against the United States.

Tomorrow, there will be a hearing to confirm the next CIA Director, it will likely generate a lot of answers. Anyone focused on this issue is likely going to watch.

More from Senator Wyden's statement:

“The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values. This memo does not answer these questions.

“I will continue to press the Administration to provide Congress with any and all legal opinions that outline the President’s authority to use lethal force against Americans, and I will not be satisfied until I have received them. I have not yet received an official response to the letter than I sent to Deputy National Security Advisor Brennan on this topic three weeks ago, but I look forward to raising the issue with him again at his nomination hearing this Thursday.”

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-doj-memo-on-the-killing-of-americans-during-counterterrorism-operations

[randome]

1. And with Tea Party minions gathering arms...

...and with Beck and others contemplating their own armed citadel, we could actually find ourselves in conflict with them. Mind you, I believe it would be an extremely short and embarrassing conflict for the survivalist types.

But that is another hypothetical situation (which needs to be supported by ANOTHER hypothetical such as arming drones) and not one that particularly keeps me up at night any more than does the fact that drones exist.

[ProSense]

3. They are perfect examples of

overreacting to hypotheticals and Beck's propaganda.

Facts, who needs them?

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t