Slate: Obama Authorizes Assassination Of U.s. Citizen

[Cerebus]

So with out any due process, no evidence, charges or trial, the executive branch can now have a US citizen assasinated in thier beds. Awesome. I though Bush over stepped his Constitutional limits, usually with John Yoo blessing some insane reading of law, but at no point was anything this bad greenlighted.

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism.

...

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

...

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

...

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.

This is bad news, and never mind which side of the political spectrum you are on, you have to this this is indefensible.

[Cerebus]

Some good followup from the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank for those who don't know who they are.

A Government of Laws, Not Men

Do not respond that this power will only be used wisely and sparingly. Doing so just admits my basic point, namely that we now depend purely on the wisdom and restraint of our individual leaders. We depend on their wisdom and restraint — to check their own worst impulses. All power, both for and against, is contained in one individual. No legal processes, and no guarantees, separate us from them. And the stakes are life or death.

Likewise, do not respond that this power will only be used against very bad people. Again, doing so just admits that we now depend on an unreviewable judgment of character, not on a legal system with formal procedures and safeguards. Even in the dark days of the Cold War — even during the Revolution itself — we never ceded so much power to so few.

[Mean Green 93-98]

While I agree with their comments, I wish the media could have taken Obama to task without identifying his target.

[LongJim]

Unbelievable.

[KRAM1]

I heard an administration "person" indicate that it WAS NOT the authorization of an assassination, but rather the authorization of a "TARGETED KILLING". Gee, that sounds pretty much like an assassination to me. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...I would think it's pretty much a duck.

Anyone wonder what the media would have done to Bush had he authorized this and then tried to say it was not the authorization of an assassination?

While I tend to think this guy needs to be "eliminated", and will probably shed no tears when he is no longer with us, I think this pretty much falls in line with the sort of thing all the libs and dems were so "fired up" about with the Bush Administration. But, since it was authorized by the Obama Administration, I guess the deed gets a pass from the media. Nice!

Just another indication that actually having to lead is a whole bunch different than being out on the campaign trail promising "stuff" to all comers just to get elected.

So, this is the "change" we can believe in........this is pretty interesting stuff...no matter which side of the aisle you favor.

[UNT90]

This actually gives me a little hope for Pres. Obama, at least on the fight against terrorism. Does this overstep Bush's policies? Probably not. That administration was just a lot less public about things like this, as they should have been. Is there a double standard in the media for a republican and a democrat? Anyone who views the media honestly knows the answer is yes, and has been for about 40 years. Don't cry about it, especially when the pass actually favors our national security interest.

Although it will be interesting to see if those on the left (including people on this board) will speak out against this clear continuance of Bush war policy, or will they just make excuses because the guy who is doing it is on thier "political team."

Edited April 9, 2010 by UNT90

[eulesseagle]

Got to agree that this goes a little further than what Bush did. It appeared that there were too many decision makers to "eliminate" a terrorist and sometimes they just got away while we had them in our cross-hairs waiting on a final approval.

My main concern is with the statement to eliminate these selected individuals by: "unchecked accusations by the executive branch."

In some respect some members of the left want to classify anyone who disagrees with their left leaning policies as a terrorist like "tea party" rallies. Does the leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party group get a visit in the middle of the night from the orders of the "executive branch" because of "unchecked accusations by the executive branch?"

[meangreenacct]

Got to agree that this goes a little further than what Bush did. It appeared that there were too many decision makers to "eliminate" a terrorist and sometimes they just got away while we had them in our cross-hairs waiting on a final approval.

My main concern is with the statement to eliminate these selected individuals by: "unchecked accusations by the executive branch."

In some respect some members of the left want to classify anyone who disagrees with their left leaning policies as a terrorist like "tea party" rallies. Does the leader of the Oklahoma Tea Party group get a visit in the middle of the night from the orders of the "executive branch" because of "unchecked accusations by the executive branch?"

If you truley believe the last part or think a parallel can be drawn between the two, I feel sorry for you.

On another note, I am a liberal, and this policy to me is indefensible.

[UNTflyer]

Anwar al-Awlaki has done enough to lose his citizenship under 8 USC 1482. Specifically, he serves as an officer (regional commander) for al-Qaeda, an organization that has declared war against the United States.

He is a deadly threat to American citizens, and won't stop until he is dead. So, I really have no problem with Obama ordering his assassination.

[GreenBat]

I agree, I thought Conservative Republican's trampled on Civil Liberty's?

This is a joke, all you Republican's don't need to get your panty's in a wad!

[LongJim]

Anwar al-Awlaki has done enough to lose his citizenship under 8 USC 1482. Specifically, he serves as an officer (regional commander) for al-Qaeda, an organization that has declared war against the United States.

He is a deadly threat to American citizens, and won't stop until he is dead. So, I really have no problem with Obama ordering his assassination.

It's a slippery slope when you condone the killing of an American citizen without due process. I have no problem with taking out enemies of the US, but in the case of an American citizen, there needs to be some kind of due process, otherwise it's a dangerous precedent. If he's "done enough to lose his citizenship", then fine--bring him to trial, convict him, and execute him.

[Cerebus]

It's a slippery slope when you condone the killing of an American citizen without due process. I have no problem with taking out enemies of the US, but in the case of an American citizen, there needs to be some kind of due process, otherwise it's a dangerous precedent. If he's "done enough to lose his citizenship", then fine--bring him to trial, convict him, and execute him.

+1

He is an American Citizen. If he is caught on a battlefield, light him up. Otherwise, we are letting one branch of the government decide by itself who gets to live and die.

[KRAM1]

I like the "light him up" part. We can provide him some "change he can believe in" with a bullet right between his ever lovin' traitor eyes! That is, of course, if caught on the battlefield or in command of a field operational unit, etc. Otherwise, I would prefer to capture the scum, try him as the traitor he is and then execute him. I like seeing the justice system work properly!

[cwb]

+1

He is an American Citizen. If he is caught on a battlefield, light him up. Otherwise, we are letting one branch of the government decide by itself who gets to live and die.

As if you don't run this forum with absolute authority pistol whipping anyone who disagrees with your totalitarianism.

Am I banned yet?

[UNT90]

+1

He is an American Citizen. If he is caught on a battlefield, light him up. Otherwise, we are letting one branch of the government decide by itself who gets to live and die.

He is in a foreign country leading an arm of Al-Qaeda. Is that not a Battlefield? This is terrorism. There are no clearly defined battlefields. To me, denouncing your country and leading an arm of an organization that is bent on the destruction of all Christian Americans is pretty much leading the battlefield charge when it comes to terrorism.

[cwb]

And remember, branches of government don't kill people....

[Quoner]

And remember, branches of government don't kill people....

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne

[cwb]

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne

Water is not a branch of government.

[UNT90]

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne

Teddy was a stump, not a branch.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---American citizen or not. He was in a "foreign country" fighting against the USA. .. Shoot him. I don't care which party our President is a member of ... he would be justified if he was activitively fighting us ... I would say he has forfeted his USA citizenship anyway. If he was in the USA ...totally different deal. Arrest and try him.

Edited April 11, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulessismore]

I'm in favor of it, and have never been on board with the"no assassination" policy. Is it somehow more more ethical, moral, or legal to use the somewhat convoluted legislative "war powers", resulting in wholesale slaughter of young people, who are serving in uniform on either side, usually as a result of conscription or financial need, than to off one or a handful of those dedicated to destroying our nation and our way of life?

[GreenMachine]

+1

He is an American Citizen. If he is caught on a battlefield, light him up. Otherwise, we are letting one branch of the government decide by itself who gets to live and die.

Love is a Battlefield!

[GrayEagle]

To me, due process is for criminals who do not flee the country.

I think that we'd all prefer to capture him and bring him back for trial but I don't want to invade Yemen to do so. Also, I have grave doubts that he would go peacefully, resulting in the loss of several more lives.

Maybe we can renounce his citizenship which should make him fair game as an enemy of the United States.

[Cerebus]

I like the "light him up" part. We can provide him some "change he can believe in" with a bullet right between his ever lovin' traitor eyes! That is, of course, if caught on the battlefield or in command of a field operational unit, etc. Otherwise, I would prefer to capture the scum, try him as the traitor he is and then execute him. I like seeing the justice system work properly!

By "caught on the battlefield" I mean actively engaged in combat operations. Participating in an ambush, buring IED's etc. I really don't have a problem with some Marine shooting back and killing him, I don't have a problem with an Apache pilot who sees him plant an IED sending some 30mm his way.

[Cerebus]

As if you don't run this forum with absolute authority pistol whipping anyone who disagrees with your totalitarianism.

Am I banned yet?

No but I have authorized John Denver to assasinate you anytime, anywhere, even on some other message board.