Jack Goldsmith, lawyer, former assistant AG, law professor

The premeditated murder of an American citizen in Yemen by his own government was, in fact, legal. I am not here to explain how that is, nor will I let myself get boxed in by specifically making that claim, but I am going to leave you with that distinct impression by spicing up my utilitarian argument with misleading declarations about the law. Did I mention that I am a powerful lawyer?

First things first: we need to poison the wel...I mean provide sufficient context. Drone strikes, doncha know, are commonplace, effective, important, and used only after a painstaking process with the most delicate care. [He could be selling Italian leather goods on Madison. "Assembled by 72 year old direct descendants of julius ceasar after being cured in a real human vagina!"]

But wait theres more! Awlaki was targeted because the government claims without any publicly available evidence [true! Look it up!] that he had an operational role in Al-Qaeda. [He does this to frame the coming analysis. If Awlaki is only guilty of propagandizing for AQ, and advocating violence against the US, Goldsmith has a problem: those activities are specifically protected by the first amendment. He knows this, so the first thing he does is explain that Awlaki was an "operational" member of AQ. Or rather that the USG claims he was. That no public evidence exists to support this contention, that the USG lawyers realize this conceptual issue as well, that the USG has a long and glorious history of dishonest manipulation of the legal system - these things do not trouble him.] Daddy told me so!

This was not assassination because this is war!, just like world war 2! ["This is war!" is the crux, meat, introduction, body and conclusion of his argument]. We declared war on Yemen! So this is just like bombing Germany and Japan! We declared war on Al Qaeda! Doncha remember that declaration of war?! Doncha remember all those customary and treaty-based laws of war governing wars on loose affiliations?! Heelllloooooo. Daddy told me so!

And furthermore (adopting my scholarly tone) "it is not accurate to say that he was targeted without due process." Due Process, ya see, depends on the context, and in this context the USG convinced a federal judge that Awlaki has no Due Process rights. [read Goldsmith's argument here carefully. He literally argues that Awlaki was not targeted without DP because Awlaki has no DP rights. He just can't or won't bring himself to say that directly]

And don't worry, the president only kills the best Thanksgiving turkey. Cautious and unprecedented targeting procedures, oh my! How can you argue with such robust procedures?!

Which brings me to the final and most important point. For not only is the murder of an american citizen by his own government legal, as I so carefully explained by providing a few baseless declarations and obscurely relying on the failure of Awlaki's father to convince a federal judge to intervene, it was right and just. For all claims to law are merely symbolic, abbreviated claims to moral rightness. This was legal but more importantly, this was just. Or as Kant once said, explicating the obligations that justice thrusts upon us, "accurate, successful and cost-effective."