On the recordDecember 1, 2011
Exactly. I would add, and get Senator Kyl's comment. Wouldn't it be an absurd result if you can kill an American citizen abroad--Awlaki--whatever his name was--the President targeted him for assassination because he was an American citizen who went to Yemen to engage in an act of terrorism against the United States. The President went through an Executive legal process, targeted him for assassination and a drone attack killed him and we are all better off. Because when an American citizen helps the enemy, they are no longer just a common criminal; they are a military threat and should be dealt with appropriately. But my point is, wouldn't it be an odd result to have a law set up so that if they actually got to America and they tried to kill our people on our own soil, all of a sudden they have criminal status? I would argue that the homeland is part of the battlefield, and we should protect the homeland above anything else. So it would be crazy to have a law that says if you went to Pakistan and attacked an American soldier, you could be blown up or held indefinitely, but if you made it back to Dulles Airport, you went downtown and started killing Americans randomly, we couldn't hold you and gather intelligence. The Supreme Court, in 1982, said that made no sense. If a Senator, in 1942, took the floor of the Senate and said: You know those American citizens who collaborated with the Nazis, we ought not treat them as an enemy, they would be run out of town.…





