Given the above, is sending drones to attack Al Qaeda "unlawful"? If yes, how so?

How do you know whoever is being killed by drones is Al Qaeda?

And as a nice demonstration of Orwellian speak the AUMF and the monarchal authority it placed in one man:

the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

What is necessary and appopriate? Barely discriminating murder apparently of those who ostensibly did what you think they did and anyone else who happens to be standing next to them guilty or otherwise.

How do YOU KNOW who planned, authorized, committed or aided whom as far as the 9-11 attacks goes?

Or who harbored or financed such attacks if it isn't subject to transparent legal scrutiny?

How do you know any of that absent evidence the reliability of which can be tested openly.

I'll tell you how. You can't unless you believe that one man or a government is infallible and motivated only by goodness and is of exceedingly pure of heart and possessed of exceptional judgement and wisdom.

In other words a fantasy King Salomon in your fantasy home town of CandyLand USA 01010.

Our founding fathers and the 600-800 years of common law jurisprudence that preceded them led them not to trust in such a naive worldview and neither do I.

They actually had a little first hand experience with it under a whole lot worse threats than we are dealing with it now from "teh terrorists".

I'd prefer to trust in the Constitution and the due process protections it provides before I go believing X did Y on somebody else's secret evidence sayso before I throw them in a deep dark hole to live out their years like a caged animal.

I'm enough of a human being to believe that every human being we detain and control and plan on caging at the very least deserves that. Otherwise America isn't what it claims to be.

I can't physically or personally stop 60% of America's citizens from being afraid of the boogeyman, but I'll never stop trying to enlighten them that how we treat the boogeyman isn't mostly about the boogeyman it's about US and who we are as a nation and as human beings.

And I will never allow you or fear to bring me so low as to get me to condone torture of human beings or depriving them of basic equal meaningful due process rights.

The man has no more business being a professor of law than does John Yoo if those statements are reflective of his legal reasoning.

It is Constitutionally permissible to pass a law that reads "it is a crime to intentionally slap someone in the face with either your left or right hand or prosthetic equivalent".

Can a man with no hands or prosthetic equivalents commit the crime of intentional face slapping with an upper torso appendage? No.

An individual without the backing of a nation-state governmental apparatus cannot commit a war crime (except definitionally as an unprivileged combatant under the Geneva Conventions or a crime against humanity under ICC definitions in a war zone or not).

If he's captured on an "actual battlefield" his status must be determined by a "competent tribunal" and then the "detaining power" has the power to hold him as a POW and all that that entails under the Geneva Conventions. He could also be turned over for prosecution to the host state. If he is a member of a neutral state or non co-belligerant state then the 4th Geneva Convention still applies which means he has the rights to a "fair and regular trial."

The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles.

This is what can happen when you are British or American fighting as a mercenary and your employer loses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luanda_Trial

Both Glenn in his writings and me in my comments have explained this repeatedly to you.

The mere existence of a subjective (arbitrary) system of multi-tiered due process is precisely what gives rise to the valid argument that these are "show trials". Nothing more nothing less. The fact that a person will be assigned a unique level of it so as to "assure" a conviction is what makes these "show trials".

It is only a show trial, in the political sense (i.e. Obama trying to make political hay by saying "see we treat them under the rule of law"), because of the other two situations. Otherwise they would be "trials that attempt to yield justice" consistent with rules of law that apply to all equally no matter how imperfectly.

You, me and Glenn agree. Treating people differently "is the problem".