That’s the claim the Obama administration made in court. As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

[W]hat’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is “state secrets”:  in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

Italics in the original. My colleagues Gene Healy and Nat Hentoff have expressed concerns about targeted killings. Charlie Savage wrote a good piece on this that highlights how even the most ardent defenders of executive power may blush at this broad claim of power.

The government’s increasing use of the state secrets doctrine to shield its actions from judicial review has been contentious. Some officials have argued that invoking it in the Awlaki matter, about which so much is already public, would risk a backlash. David Rivkin, a lawyer in the White House of President George H. W. Bush, echoed that concern.

“I’m a huge fan of executive power, but if someone came up to you and said the government wants to target you and you can’t even talk about it in court to try to stop it, that’s too harsh even for me,” he said.

In fairness, Rivkin would defend the administration’s claim of power on other grounds — that targeting is a “political question” for the elected branches of government — but this approach seems to have lost out because it invites the judiciary to determine whether the U.S. is at war in Yemen.

Amending the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress after 9/11 is long overdue. What groups are we truly at war with, where does the line between war and peace sit, who can we detain and kill, and what process is owed before a citizen may be targeted with lethal force? Questions of war are political in nature, and if we don’t know the answers, it is Congress’ role to step in and provide them.

Targeted Killing of U.S. Citizen a State Secret? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Nat Hentoff  has a terrific column in the Village Voice on the stop and frisk tactics of the New York City Police Department.  Here’s an excerpt:

Commissioner Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg, your stop-and-frisk approach trashes the Fourteenth Amendment. So while Governor Paterson merits our cheers for not being at all intimidated by you, a lot more has to be done to bring the Constitution back into New York City.

A co-sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Jeffries, reminded all of us (The New York Times, July 16) that the signing of the bill was “the beginning point, not the end point, of a larger evaluation of the effectiveness and legitimacy” of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk electronic dragnet.

Since there will continue to be stops, questions, frisks—and some arrests—I would be grateful, Commissioner Kelly, for your reaction to this tiny but very inflammatory story buried at the very bottom of page 14 in the July 10 Daily News, “Cuffed Brooklyn Woman Hit Back at Cops.”

The story describes that, in a lawsuit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, two Brooklyn women, Taneisha Chapman and Markeena Williams, “claim they were wrongfully arrested by the NYPD after following the advice of a flyer (by the American Civil Liberties Union) entitled: ‘What should you do if stopped by the police?’ ”

When stopped by cops last August outside the Marcy Houses and asked to produce identification, they showed the flyer (commendably issued by the office of Assemblyman Nick Perry, Democrat, East Flatbush) that says—and James Madison would have fully approved—“It’s not a crime to refuse to answer questions. You can’t be arrested for merely refusing to identify yourself on the street.”

Daily News reporter John Marzulli wrote: “The cops were apparently in no mood for a legal debate and hauled off both women to Brooklyn Central Booking. The unspecified criminal charges were later dismissed, according to the suit.”

Read the whole thing.

For related Cato work, go here and here.

Nat Hentoff on ‘Stop & Frisk’ Police Tactics is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Cato fellows Nat Hentoff and Penn Jillette have just been profiled in major publications — Hentoff in the New York Times and Penn in Vanity Fair. Warning: the Hentoff profile is mostly about jazz, and the Penn interview contains lots of four-letter words, obscene imagery, and harsh language about religion. So if you have a low tolerance for jazz or for obscenity and blasphemy, be forewarned. But it’s no surprise that both of them talk a lot about the importance of free speech.

Our Fellows in the News is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has a nice post about Cato Senior Fellow Nat Hentoff.

Here’s an excerpt:

At the age of 85, Hentoff is a radical in the best sense of the word — a true freedom fighter and warrior journalist with a deep-seated intolerance of injustice. His integrity and willingness to buck the trends have earned him the well-deserved reputation of being one of our nation’s most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers.

Well said.  At age 85, Nat Hentoff continues to write books and a weekly column.  His new book is At the Jazz Band Ball: Sixty Years on the Jazz Scene.

John Whitehead on Nat Hentoff is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• Nat Hentoff: If you’re looking for reform in Cuba, don’t rest your hopes on Raul Castro.

• Tim Carney, author of Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses gives the inside scoop on why big government is good for big business.

• The Patriot Act: What should go, and what should stay?

• Dear Poor People- “Please remain poor.” Sincerely, Obamacare.

• Podcast: “Obamanomics in Health Care” featuring Tim Carney.

Thursday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• David Boaz: “Suddenly, I find myself nostalgic for Bill Clinton….Come back, Bill, all is forgiven. Or most, anyway. As long as you bring a Republican Congress with you.”

• So, have you been following the health-care debate on C-SPAN? Oh wait…

• Obama administration preparing a new arms package for Taiwan.

• Nat Hentoff to Castro et al: “Roar, tyrants, you cannot hide your racist deeds.“

• Podcast: “Price Controls in Obamacare” featuring Michael F. Cannon.

Monday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• Nat Hentoff reports on racism in Cuba.

• Federal judge dismisses charges against Blackwater guards over the killing of 17 in Baghdad. David Isenberg: “The fact that the Blackwater contractors are not getting a trial will only serve to further increase suspicion of and hostility towards security contractors. It is going to be even more difficult for them to gain the trust of local populations or government officials in the countries they work in.”

• New report shows state and local government workers have higher average compensation levels than private workers.

• Podcast: “Televising and Subsidizing the Big Game” featuring Neal McCluskey. “Everybody should watch the National College Football Championship because whether you’re interested or not, you are paying for it,” he says.

Wednesday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Here are some interesting new items on the web:

• Cato Senior Fellow Nat Hentoff is interviewed by John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.  Nat says “Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important.”  And “Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had.”  Go here for the full interview.
• Cato adjunct scholar Harvey Silverglate is blogging this week over at the Volokh Conspiracy on his new book, Three Felonies a Day.
•  Cato Adjunct Scholar Marie Gryphon, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Manhattan Institute, has just put out a new paper, It’s a Crime: Flaws in Federal Statutes That Punish Regular Businesspeople.
• Cato Media Fellow Radley Balko takes a look at the pathetic machinations in the Chicago Police Department.  Reminds me of the proud boast from a patronage worker in the political machine: “Chicago ain’t ready for reform!”

Good stuff here.  For more Cato scholarship, go here.

A Civil Liberties Roundup is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• How the European Union can bring peace to the Middle East.
• Nat Hentoff on the health care debate: “We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be. That decision is way above their pay grades.”
• Video: What can autism teach us about economics?
• Cato’s Malou Innocent debates the troop build up in Afghanistan.
• Over at Cato Unbound, experts discuss the positive and negative outcomes of modernity.
• Podcast: Driverless cars? They aren’t as far away as you think.

Monday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• Nat Hentoff has a few tough questions for doctors who aided CIA torture.

• Is public option a private insurer killer? Larry McNeely and Michael Cannon debate.

• “Cap-and-Trade Is Dead. Long Live Cap-and-Trade!”

• Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says the recession is probably over. But was he the man who saved the economy?

• Podcast: Should the government have the power to punish you for speaking your mind? Many Americans think it should…so long as it’s people with whom they don’t agree.

Weekend Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

With the support of President Obama, so-called “hate crime” legislation is on the move in Congress. According to Cato senior fellow Nat Hentoff, laws that punish one time for the crime and another time for the hate violate the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment and protections against Double Jeopardy.

In April, Hentoff spoke at the Cato Policy Perspectives seminar in New York City about the current expansion of hate crime legislation.

New at Cato: Nat Hentoff on Hate Crimes is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog