A New Lawfare Competition: Write the New York Times Editorial on Al-Aulaqi

A second Sunday paper has come and gone since the Anwar Al-Aulaqi strike, and still no New York Times editorial about it. I guess the killing of two U.S. nationals by their own government isn't adequately important to warrant comment--certainly not in comparison to such pressing matters as gender equality among lawyers, race discrimination in the New York Fire Department, progress in the movement to save sharks, ongoing problems with the FBI's watchlisting practices, and, of course, how to measure the coming of autumn and the relationship between Doritos and literary output--all of which matters have warranted Times editorials since Al-Aulaqi's death. So I am announcing the newest Lawfare competition: Since the New York Times editorialists refuse to write their own editorial, Lawfare readers will do it for them. Here are the rules: Submissions should not be efforts to put the author's own views in the voice of the Times but, rather, efforts to characterize--one might even say parody--the Times' own editorial voice and positions. Special points will be awarded to those who capture the Times editorial writers' ability to contradict themselves with equally fervent insistence on two mutually incompatible positions and to insist on courses of action the editorialists elsewhere describe as unlawful. Lawfare will naturally take anonymous entries, since editorials are traditionally written anonymously and since numerous government officials will no doubt want to participate. Entries will be posted at my sole discretion. The winner will receive a prize to be determined--as well as a cc on the correspondence when I send his or her submission to Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal.