Slate: Obama Authorizes Assassination Of U.s. Citizen

[Cerebus]

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.

All of which are allegations, not proven in any court of law. With no check on that power, what exactly is there to stop anyone from abusing that power? Isn't the entire purpose of our checks and balances system an acknowledgement that that power ALWAYS becomes corrupted, and only others, in thier own intrest, can work to contain that?

[Cerebus]

---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.

Once again, not proven. Really nothing to stop anyone from being named anonymously.

[yyz28]

Once again, not proven. Really nothing to stop anyone from being named anonymously.

Yeah, I have to agree here.

If he is caught in a battle and killed in the action, I'm OK with that, as he had actively taken arms. ...but to target any US citizen for assassination without due process, no matter how horrific the person or their crimes are, is not right. ...find him, try him, revoke his citizenship under the rule of law and execute him for his crimes if he is convicted.

[KRAM1]

Great...let's wait until he kills an American soldier or other coalition soldier and then we know for sure! Good plan! Just what does it take in your definition to be an enemy combatant? Perhaps his own words or the fact that his activities are known to coalition intel? Just what does one have to do to avoid that "due process" in a court of law thing for you? I am not "picking" on you, just wanting to know what would be "enough" for you BEFORE the guy actively engages in the death of a US or coalition partner or leads an enemy team that kills?

It is a tough question, I get it, and the US forces should do all that is reasonably expected they should do to be quite certain of their targets when deadly force is used, but seems to me the "other side", whom some seem to want to give access to our civilian court system, are not overly concerned about the folks they kill...civilian or not, women or children...

Just like during Viet Nam when we couldn't bomb the Hanoi harbor (Hai Phong or how ever you spell it) while the Viet Cong and North Viet Nam regulars (NVA) were being re-supplied daily and quickly from the ships docking hourly in the harbor. Most challenging when one side is fighting with a hand and arm tied behind them.

[UNT90]

---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.

Were you not against enemy combatants being held at Gitmo?

So, it's OK to kill an American citizen accused of leading an arm of the enemy army, but not OK to imprison enemy army forces?

If I'm mistaken about your stance on gitmo, my apologies, but if not, quite the contradiction, don't you think?

[Cerebus]

Great...let's wait until he kills an American soldier or other coalition soldier and then we know for sure! Good plan! Just what does it take in your definition to be an enemy combatant? Perhaps his own words or the fact that his activities are known to coalition intel? Just what does one have to do to avoid that "due process" in a court of law thing for you? I am not "picking" on you, just wanting to know what would be "enough" for you BEFORE the guy actively engages in the death of a US or coalition partner or leads an enemy team that kills?

It is a tough question, I get it, and the US forces should do all that is reasonably expected they should do to be quite certain of their targets when deadly force is used, but seems to me the "other side", whom some seem to want to give access to our civilian court system, are not overly concerned about the folks they kill...civilian or not, women or children...

Just like during Viet Nam when we couldn't bomb the Hanoi harbor (Hai Phong or how ever you spell it) while the Viet Cong and North Viet Nam regulars (NVA) were being re-supplied daily and quickly from the ships docking hourly in the harbor. Most challenging when one side is fighting with a hand and arm tied behind them.

Kram, if I remember correctly your son is over seas fighting, and for that I am very appreciative. Some of my own family is overseas also, I understand the concern, and I am the kind of person that usually errs on the side of protecting American forces over things like trying to eliminate collateral damage, which can't be done.

However, if we are fighting this war to uphold the American way of life, then why would we do our enemies work for them by giving up such cornerstones of American democracy such as trial by jury, the prohibition on secret evidence, the ability to defend yourself against accusation, etc?

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

One person issueing a death sentance, without presenting any evidence, without being held accountable by anyone, with out any ability to refute the charges on the part of the accused, sounds like a radical mullah issuing a fatwah, not like what should be done by the United States of America.

If he is caught, engaging in the battlefield, he is fair prey. If military intelligence knows of a meeting to plan attacks, then the meeting should be bombed. But that isn't what this is allowing, that was allowed before.

What this is saying is anyone can be accused with secret evidence, can be sentenced to death, and then be assasinated even if he is just sitting in a coffee shop or taking a nap on the beach. If the CIA can just hunt him down to shoot him in the head, why can't they just grab him and bring him to trial. What, that person may be in a country that won't want to give him up? Well they sure aren't going to want us to kill him either. If we are going to make that country angry anyway, might as well bring him back for trial.

I know, these are tough questions, no one said running a republic would be easy, but I will almost always err on the side of liberty over "security". I think Franklin also said something about giving up libery for temporary security, and I agree with him on that.

[TheTastyGreek]

Kram, if I remember correctly your son is over seas fighting, and for that I am very appreciative. Some of my own family is overseas also, I understand the concern, and I am the kind of person that usually errs on the side of protecting American forces over things like trying to eliminate collateral damage, which can't be done.

However, if we are fighting this war to uphold the American way of life, then why would we do our enemies work for them by giving up such cornerstones of American democracy such as trial by jury, the prohibition on secret evidence, the ability to defend yourself against accusation, etc?

One person issueing a death sentance, without presenting any evidence, without being held accountable by anyone, with out any ability to refute the charges on the part of the accused, sounds like a radical mullah issuing a fatwah, not like what should be done by the United States of America.

If he is caught, engaging in the battlefield, he is fair prey. If military intelligence knows of a meeting to plan attacks, then the meeting should be bombed. But that isn't what this is allowing, that was allowed before.

What this is saying is anyone can be accused with secret evidence, can be sentenced to death, and then be assasinated even if he is just sitting in a coffee shop or taking a nap on the beach. If the CIA can just hunt him down to shoot him in the head, why can't they just grab him and bring him to trial. What, that person may be in a country that won't want to give him up? Well they sure aren't going to want us to kill him either. If we are going to make that country angry anyway, might as well bring him back for trial.

I know, these are tough questions, no one said running a republic would be easy, but I will almost always err on the side of liberty over "security". I think Franklin also said something about giving up libery for temporary security, and I agree with him on that.

So, what you're saying is... A person ought to have actually committed a crime before being punished for criminal activity, and even then ought to have the opportunity to defend him or herself against the charges of their guilt in a court designed to protect people from faulty accusations and abuses of centralized power?

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Cerebus]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Here you go.

[TheTastyGreek]

Here you go.

Take it from a guy who knows his own laziness played a huge role in killing not one, but two reasonably popular online newsletter-type outlets:

You need to update more frequently and put up a lot more fresh content if you want to keep your newsletter subscribers.

[KRAM1]

Cerebus, I don't disagree with the thought that "hard evidence" should be obtained first. I think that's understandable, but I don't agree that we should try to capture these guys and bring them back to be tried in civilian courts. These folks ARE NOT civilians...they are enemy combatants just the same as the non-uniformed Viet Cong were enemy combatants during "my war era". This guy has, I believe, through his own comments and actions has placed himself in the role as an enemy of the nation and a traitor. I don't want to "wait" until he actually kills before we take him out. Great if he is "on a beach" somewhere...easier to find the scum...before he leads a group on a suicide mission that kills not only US or coalition soldiers, but many innocent civilian men, women and children. These are cowards who get others to do the killing for them, and do not deserve civil protections. Unfortunately, it is a war. Want to capture and try them...great a military court will do just fine.

Now, bottom line, I am glad that I am not the one who actually has to make these life/death decisions. It's a tough job as the current administration is finding out...just like the last administration found out. Saying you will do one thing while on the campaign trail to get elected is the easy part, actually having to make the decision is the hard part as we are seeing.

Thanks to those trying to make the right decisions to protect lives and property and to provide a workable and safer nation...it's a tough job, and one I like debating much more than I would like having to make the actual decision. Having to make the decisions would certainly lead to many sleepless nights and lots of "second thoughts" no matter which way the decision went.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I read the article, but not the three pages of commentary, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive:

(1) The guy is aiding terrorist. Therefore, I don't care where he was born. You step into the arena, be prepared for the bull and his horns.

(2) Obama could have been naive about the war on terror while running for president, but I doubt it. I think he was wise enough to play to the far left idiots in the Democratic base who really believe he'd change the war on terror. But, once in the White House, he knew he'd have to accept the reality of continuing to fight and kill terrorist, by any means, for the tenure of his term.

(3) I'm drinking RC Cola this morning and I'm not ashamed of it.

[LongJim]

Some of you guys are being blinded by the situation.

The question is whether you believe it's justified for the POTUS to give permission to have a US citizen assassinated based on "evidence", without a trial.

If it's ok under these circumstances, when is it NOT ok, and who makes that decision?

It's un-Consitutional, and it's un-American, and the POTUS should not have that power without some checks and balances on it. Under this scenario, he does not.

[KRAM1]

Some of you guys are being blinded by the situation.

The question is whether you believe it's justified for the POTUS to give permission to have a US citizen assassinated based on "evidence", without a trial.

If it's ok under these circumstances, when is it NOT ok, and who makes that decision?

It's un-Consitutional, and it's un-American, and the POTUS should not have that power without some checks and balances on it. Under this scenario, he does not.

LongJim;

I get the point you are making, but in my opinion this scum gave up his rights as a US citizen when he "took up arms and/or aided and abetted" the enemy on the field of battle. Seems to me that there are some "checks and balances" here..like the Justice Dept. Let them "weigh in" if they wish and we'll see where it goes. I do find it interesting that the media has not gone "postal" over this as they surely would have under the previous administration. Again, I am OK if you want to capture him and try him in a military court before he is executed for treason, but NOT if he gets protection under civil laws.

It's war! Treason is punishable by death. They guy has convicted himself through his own comments and actions. I don't know, but, for me, that's enough. Good riddance to this scum.

[Cerebus]

LongJim;

I get the point you are making, but in my opinion this scum gave up his rights as a US citizen when he "took up arms and/or aided and abetted" the enemy on the field of battle.

No one has proven that. And with this process, no one ever has to. Anyone could be named. There is nothing here to stop any abuse. Activists, political opponents, anyone.

It's war! Treason is punishable by death. They guy has convicted himself through his own comments and actions. I don't know, but, for me, that's enough. Good riddance to this scum.

Treason is punishable for death. In fact false claims of treason to suppress political opponents was such a grievence of the founding fathers that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You can't have a treason conviction unless there is a confession in an open court, or testimnony by two first hand witnesses. So fine, if we are so concerned about this, have an open treason trial, convict him in absentia (that is what we did for Benedict Arnold since he had fled to England and the British were not going to hand him over) and then sentence him to death.

That is an open trial, and is acceptable and gets the result we need.

Having one person, or one council, in secret decide to kill someone without eveidence, is not acceptable, even if we get to the same result.

So I have given a handful of ways to get the same result, without destroying the Constitution, why would we want this option?

This sort of abuse of power is the exact reason we had the revolution in the first place, I am not ready to give it all back because of some guy hiding in a cave, America is bigger and better than this.

[KRAM1]

No one has proven that. And with this process, no one ever has to. Anyone could be named. There is nothing here to stop any abuse. Activists, political opponents, anyone.

Treason is punishable for death. In fact false claims of treason to suppress political opponents was such a grievence of the founding fathers that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You can't have a treason conviction unless there is a confession in an open court, or testimnony by two first hand witnesses. So fine, if we are so concerned about this, have an open treason trial, convict him in absentia (that is what we did for Benedict Arnold since he had fled to England and the British were not going to hand him over) and then sentence him to death.

That is an open trial, and is acceptable and gets the result we need.

Having one person, or one council, in secret decide to kill someone without eveidence, is not acceptable, even if we get to the same result.

So I have given a handful of ways to get the same result, without destroying the Constitution, why would we want this option?

This sort of abuse of power is the exact reason we had the revolution in the first place, I am not ready to give it all back because of some guy hiding in a cave, America is bigger and better than this.

Fine...military court it is. Good to go if he is captured BEFORE being killed. I'm down with that just fine.

[Cerebus]

Fine...military court it is. Good to go if he is captured BEFORE being killed. I'm down with that just fine.

It wouldn't be a military trial. It will be a civil trial. This has happened before, under the Bush administration, when the Justice Department charged Adam Yahiye Gadahn (born Adam Pearlman) with treason in 2004.

This was done becasue while the Constitution defines treason, it also declared the puhishment for such a crime will be establish by the Congress, which it does in the U.S. Code (USC). This defines it as a federal criminal case.

[KRAM1]

It wouldn't be a military trial. It will be a civil trial. This has happened before, under the Bush administration, when the Justice Department charged Adam Yahiye Gadahn (born Adam Pearlman) with treason in 2004.

This was done because while the Constitution defines treason, it also declared the punishment for such a crime will be establish by the Congress, which it does in the U.S. Code (USC). This defines it as a federal criminal case.

Like I said...I'm good with a military trial for enemy combatants such as this guy. No way I want to spend the time (years) and millions of dollars giving these scum access to our civil courts. I believe that a military trial for enemy combatants is full well within the framework of the constitution. Seems to me that there is plenty of precedent for that as well. I know, we can "discuss" this at length. I am also well aware of the Pearlman situation. It doesn't change my personal opinion.

Like I said earlier, I am glad I am not the one having to make these very challenging and difficult decisions. Too many "experts" on both sides, and one can be certain that what ever the final decision is that as many folks will agree as disagree. So be it..it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I'm fine with you having a different opinion.

[eulesseagle]

This terrorist will look like all his other buddies in the field & if he gets hit with hot lead from some Marine or takes an air to surface missle then that is too bad. I really do not think that there is "any" special attempt to seach this traitor out just to give him a fair trail. Let him take his chances. The US had a similar situation a few years ago with some anglo California kid from a well to do family being captured in Afganistan with some of his buds. Couldn't tell 'em apart....dirty, nasty looking, bearded & traditional clothing.

I still remain a little concern about the special power of the POTUS to issue kill orders on what is stated as terrorists. It still remains an ambiguous term how it is used and how it might apply to someone who may disagree with state policy.

[UNTflyer]

All of which are allegations, not proven in any court of law.

Seriously?? We're not talking about some 18 year old wanna-be suicide bomber. We are talking about the man we KNOW is the senior recruiter and regional commander for al-Qaeda.

Really, I don't give two hoots if the guy is a citizen. He's a traitor and a terrorist and if he gets a quick bullet through the head it is much more merciful than the suffering his direct actions against innocent have caused.

Edited April 14, 2010 by UNTflyer

[Censored by Laurie]

Seriously?? We're not talking about some 18 year old wanna-be suicide bomber. We are talking about the man we KNOW is the senior recruiter and regional commander for al-Qaeda.

Really, I don't give two hoots if the guy is a citizen. He's a traitor and a terrorist and if he gets a quick bullet through the head it is much more merciful than the suffering his direct actions against innocent have caused.

Taking specifics out of things...I think Cerebus's issue is with the precedent that such actions set. I don't have much of an opinion here so I won;t weigh in too much..but I think the back and forth on specifics may be missing the crux of the argument.

[UNT90]

Taking specifics out of things...I think Cerebus's issue is with the precedent that such actions set. I don't have much of an opinion here so I won;t weigh in too much..but I think the back and forth on specifics may be missing the crux of the argument.

I get the argument, but how do you justify sending a missile from a drone into a building to kill 15 people on intelligence alone? And if your intelligence says this guy wll be at that meeting, do you not send the missile in? The argument will be that he is plotting against the US at the time the missile is sent to kill him, but how do we really know that? There has been no trial in open court, only review of intelligence information that led to that assumption, so we are back to the same issue.

So what Cerebus is saying is that unless this guy is on a battlefield, this country can't act against him. I completely disagree. At some point, you have a review of intelligence in a war and act on that intelligence.

I think it all comes down to if you view this as a war or as a police action. Those who view it as a war will say kill him the first chance you get. Those that view this as a police action will say arrest him and take him to trial.

[GreenBat]

UNT90, I've got poem for you that explains what Cerebus is trying to say.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoll

[UNT90]

UNT90, I've got poem for you that explains what Cerebus is trying to say.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoll

Nice poem. Now, how about an answer to the real world scenerio in my previous post.

[eulesseagle]

UNT90 is correct....take 'em all out. War is not a political correct police action and the men/women that fight these conflicts are trained for one purpose....to inflict as much hurt on the enemy before they inflict the same to us. Where have we gotten away from this concept?? Name me a war where NO civilians got killed? Innocent or maybe not so innocent civilians get killed every day in war along with the combatants. That is life and it will never change no matter how much some people try to justify trying to fight politically correct with zero collateral damage. It has never happened and will not happen. If some top enemy opperative was in some mud hut with several of his top people along with 15 of their grandkids I would not think twice about dropping the mother of all bombs on that hut because.......he would do the same to me if he had the chance and we all know that!!

[LongJim]

So what Cerebus is saying is that unless this guy is on a battlefield, this country can't act against him.

Not what he or anyone else said, at all. Take the situation and the knee-jerk "get the evil-doers" emotion out of it. Does the President have the power to have a US citizen executed without due process far away from a battlefield, and for reasons "judged" to be treasonous (or not)?

If He does, where is He authorized this power, (Perhaps it's ordained by God. I damn sure know it's not Constitutional) and why would you want Him to have it, and who decides where and when it stops? Him?