Slate: Obama Authorizes Assassination Of U.s. Citizen

[UNT90]

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?

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Many things are not authorized in the constitution (many would argue that abortion is the taking of innocent lives that is not authorized by the constitution, but that is a whole different subject). It will ultimately come down to the SUpreme Court to rule what is and is not constitutional. The below article gives you a little history on how the court will come down during a time of war:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011017_levinson.html

The interesting thing about this article is that it was written shortly after 09/11/01. This from the last paragraph:

"In any event, it is naïve to believe that the Supreme Court will invalidate any government action that receives both congressional and presidential imprimatur as necessary and proper to protect Americans against the terrorist threat. If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them."

[Cerebus]

Fine. I am not going to convince anyone, I am not going to waste my time.

I am sure handing this power to the government will never be abused, they do so well reigning in other well intentioned programs such as social security, welfare, medicare, etc. I don't see how handing them an unchecked power over life and death could go wrong. Only a nutbag would think this would grow beyond its current boundries.

A nutbag like that would probably think the government would try and make public speech against the current government illegal, or try and create a under class of permanent slaves, or kick American citizens out of the country soley based on thier ancestry or throw other American citizens into prison camps soley based on thier ancestry.

Crazy talk.

[Cerebus]

These pretty much capture my feelings.

'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' Benjamin Franklin, 'Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor,' November 11, 1755

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791

I hear China is a very safe country to live in, and thier government feels they only take away the bare minimum of rights in order to provide that security.

[Censored by Laurie]

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.

What Cerebus is saying (I presume) is that this specific situation isn't the issue, but rather that the assassination of this American citizen, no matter his actions, sets a precedent that can be used in the future to justify the assassinations of other American citizens...presumably for reasons less severe...especially, and while I think this would be hyperbole, those who would voice their opinions against this or any other presiding government.

[KRAM1]

It's a balancing act to be sure, but given all our "warts" and missteps through the years I remain very proud to fly the flag of the greatest nation on God's green earth.

There are nations who call themselves "democratic republics" and the like where such discussions as we are having would get you thrown in jail...or worse.

[Cerebus]

It's a balancing act to be sure, but given all our "warts" and missteps through the years I remain very proud to fly the flag of the greatest nation on God's green earth.

There are nations who call themselves "democratic republics" and the like where such discussions as we are having would get you thrown in jail...or worse.

I am a strong believer in American Exceptionlism. I believe America is the best country in the world. I believe that is mainly because of the greatest governing document ever written, the Constitution.

And that is way I so hate this incrementalism that creeps in and slowly steals away the power of that document. Usually, its just to keep you safe, or keep your children safe, or to keep the less fortunate safe, but all most of them do in the end is take your liberty away.

I often hear people say "If the founding fathers saw what was going on now, they would spin in ther graves", and that is probably true. But what is also true is the government intrusions on liberty that seem commonplace today would have horrified most people in the 1970's, and the ones that seemed commonplace in the 1970's would have horrified those in the 1920's, and those the people of the 1880's, and those the people of the 1850's, all the way back till when the ink on the Declaration of Independance was still wet.

The government never gives you more rights, no one thinks thier children are more free than they were, and its all done in little bites. Unless people start to stand up and demand thier liberty, then all this means is your grandchildren will be less free than your children, and their children will be less free than them, and on and on.

[LongJim]

The government never gives you more rights, no one thinks thier children are more free than they were, and its all done in little bites.

What is particularly detestable, deplorable, and insidious, is that these "little bites" of our freedoms being taken away are happening wrapped in the good ol' Red White, and Blue, and the blood of so many who died on a battlefield WINNING the liberties being taken away--and their memories--are being desecrated.

At the same time, the blood of our CURRENT men and women supposedly fighting FOR our freedoms is being desecrated by politicians who are CHIPPING AWAY at those same freedoms while out of the other side of their mouths spouting platitudes about those very same soldiers and "keeping us free". Sickening.

But, Go Mean Green.

[UNT90]

I am a strong believer in American Exceptionlism. I believe America is the best country in the world. I believe that is mainly because of the greatest governing document ever written, the Constitution.

And that is way I so hate this incrementalism that creeps in and slowly steals away the power of that document. Usually, its just to keep you safe, or keep your children safe, or to keep the less fortunate safe, but all most of them do in the end is take your liberty away.

I often hear people say "If the founding fathers saw what was going on now, they would spin in ther graves", and that is probably true. But what is also true is the government intrusions on liberty that seem commonplace today would have horrified most people in the 1970's, and the ones that seemed commonplace in the 1970's would have horrified those in the 1920's, and those the people of the 1880's, and those the people of the 1850's, all the way back till when the ink on the Declaration of Independance was still wet.

The government never gives you more rights, no one thinks thier children are more free than they were, and its all done in little bites. Unless people start to stand up and demand thier liberty, then all this means is your grandchildren will be less free than your children, and their children will be less free than them, and on and on.

I completely agree with everything that you say here. But I think every situation needs to be viewed individually, and this situation has a very unique set of facts. One of the biggest problems with government in general is that it always tries to fit a square peg into a round hole, utilizing the one-size-fits-all type of thinking for which government beaurocrats have become famous. As long as the congressional intelligence committee signs off on this unanimously, I don't have a problem with it.

Does it bother me that the current administration may take this to far? Yes. Is that fair? No.

[Cerebus]

As long as the congressional intelligence committee signs off on this unanimously, I don't have a problem with it.

What congressional committee? It's decided by a "council" where the president has the only real vote, and all the other "advisor" members are appointed by the president.

[UNT90]

What congressional committee? It's decided by a "council" where the president has the only real vote, and all the other "advisor" members are appointed by the president.

If this is true, then I do have a problem with it. I bet it has gone through the Senate Intelligence Committee before coming to the President, otherwise you would see a HUGE media push on this by the republicans and some democrats. Anything of this nature would not be commented on publicly by this committee if they had cleared it. You can bet that if this had not been cleared by this committee, the republicans and some of the democrats on this committee would be howling about it.

Sad thing is, take a look at the names on that committee. Not much in the way of intelligence.

Edited April 14, 2010 by UNT90

[Cerebus]

Like I said...I'm good with a military trial for enemy combatants such as this guy.

Missed this earlier.

An American Citizen can not be declared an enemy combatant without access to due process to defend himself of that accusation, at least that is what the Supreme Court decided in Hamdi vs Rumsfield (2004).

Personally, I sided more with Judge Antonin Scalia, who wrote an opinion to that case that said a US citizen must be given charged with a crime and convicted in a trial, before punishment can be given out.

[Cerebus]

If this is true, then I do have a problem with it.

It's true. To be put onto this CIA assasination list, it has to be ok'ed by the National Security Council. Let's look who is on it:

The President.

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs: Appointed by the President

Secretary of State: Appointed by the President

Secretary of the Treasury: Appointed by the President

Secretary of Defense: Appointed by the President

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Appointed by the President

Director of National Intelligence: Appointed by the President

Vice President: Not Appointed, but really, the VP...

There are others who are invited to attend from time to time, but they don't have to be invited, and are all from the executive branch anyway. This is just a smoke screen anyway, there are no votes, these are advisors, what the President wants is what happens.

I bet it has gone through the Senate Intelligence Committee before coming to the President, otherwise you would see a HUGE media push on this by the republicans and some democrats. Anything of this nature would not be commented on publicly by this committee if they had cleared it. You can bet that if this had not been cleared by this committee, the republicans and some of the democrats on this committee would be howling about it.

There is absolutley NOTHING about this that has to go through the legislative branch. This is decided by the chief executive, then carried out by another executive branch entity, the CIA. Why aren't politicans jumping on this? Look at how people responded in this thread, anyone who did would immediately be labeled as "soft on terror".

[UNT90]

It's true. To be put onto this CIA assasination list, it has to be ok'ed by the National Security Council. Let's look who is on it:

The President.

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs: Appointed by the President

Secretary of State: Appointed by the President

Secretary of the Treasury: Appointed by the President

Secretary of Defense: Appointed by the President

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Appointed by the President

Director of National Intelligence: Appointed by the President

Vice President: Not Appointed, but really, the VP...

There are others who are invited to attend from time to time, but they don't have to be invited, and are all from the executive branch anyway. This is just a smoke screen anyway, there are no votes, these are advisors, what the President wants is what happens.

There is absolutley NOTHING about this that has to go through the legislative branch. This is decided by the chief executive, then carried out by another executive branch entity, the CIA. Why aren't politicans jumping on this? Look at how people responded in this thread, anyone who did would immediately be labeled as "soft on terror".

No, I think the Republicans, especially McCain, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be screaming their lungs out if this was strickly decided by the executive branch. Not only that, the ACLU would have this policy in the courts immediately, unless you believe the ACLU will bow to Pres. Obama because he is a leftist (which I don't).

It wouldn't make the republicans look weak on national defense, it would just look as though they wanted a verification process. I bet there is already one in place if this is indeed an active policy.

[Cerebus]

No, I think the Republicans, especially McCain, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be screaming their lungs out if this was strickly decided by the executive branch. Not only that, the ACLU would have this policy in the courts immediately, unless you believe the ACLU will bow to Pres. Obama because he is a leftist (which I don't).

It wouldn't make the republicans look weak on national defense, it would just look as though they wanted a verification process. I bet there is already one in place if this is indeed an active policy.

I've linked 5 or 6 stories where they state that this, in fact, is soley within the the purview of the Executive branch with the only oversight by the NSC.

If you can find an article that says that the executive branch and the NSC have to revieve approval from the SIC before they can add people to the CIA assasination list, please do so.

In fact, if you can find one that syas there is a requirement to even tell the SIC what is going on, I'de like to see that also.

[UNT90]

I've linked 5 or 6 stories where they state that this, in fact, is soley within the the purview of the Executive branch with the only oversight by the NSC.

If you can find an article that says that the executive branch and the NSC have to revieve approval from the SIC before they can add people to the CIA assasination list, please do so.

In fact, if you can find one that syas there is a requirement to even tell the SIC what is going on, I'de like to see that also.

You are not going to find a story coming out of the SIC because they are not allowed to talk about it. Google Rules of Procedure Senate Intelligence Committee (It is in PDF form so I couldn't post a link) and look at rule 9, especially rule 9.7. You will not see any comments from the members of this committee if they have reviewed the intelligence. They would be screaming if they didn't because they would have no duty to be quiet. Do you really not think that the opposition party wouldn't take the opportunity to show Pres. Obama as a huge hypocrite? Personally, as a political strategy, I think they should be doing that now anyways.

The CIA is not going to tell the media what information they are presenting to the intelligence committee. Ever. Likewise, the policy for this type of intelligence distribution would also be classified, so we would never know if or when it went before the committee.

I will challenge you to find any comment made about this policy by any member of the committee critizing the policy. If you can find that, then you just might change my mind.

[UNTflyer]

You are not going to find a story coming out of the SIC because they are not allowed to talk about it. Google Rules of Procedure Senate Intelligence Committee (It is in PDF form so I couldn't post a link) and look at rule 9, especially rule 9.7. You will not see any comments from the members of this committee if they have reviewed the intelligence.

Except from Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.

[Cerebus]

I will challenge you to find any comment made about this policy by any member of the committee critizing the policy. If you can find that, then you just might change my mind.

So you want me to to argue my point, by arguing your point, by citing sources that you argue will never say anything? Seems unresasoble.

Considering the fact that if there was any cover from the SIC that the White House could use to deflect the crtiticism they have recieved so far, they could easily do that, without compormising anything, by simply saying that the SIC has the ability to do so.

Since they haven't, I think it's pretty easy to guess that no politician would sit there and take these hits for no good reason, so I have to assume the SIC is not in fact involved.

Occam's razor.

[Cerebus]

Do you really not think that the opposition party wouldn't take the opportunity to show Pres. Obama as a huge hypocrite?

They could already label him a huge hypocrite, but for some reason aren't, based on this:

UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

[Cerebus]

Wait, why am I even going off on this tangent? Who cares if the SIC does or does not sit in on this?

The Senate doesn't have any more right to order an American killed without due process of law than does the executive branch. They, just like the executive branch, can't declare an American citizen a Enemy Combatant without due process either.

This is a nation of laws, or it should be. If they want to charge him with treason, or go about naming him as an enemy combatant so he can be killed by the military or cia or whoever, then do so. Don't fire off fatwahs secret orders than name someone a enemy of Islam the state, and order his death without due process. That's not what Americans do.

Do you want him dead? So do I. Do you want him to be able to be killed by the military or the CIA? So do I. There are already perfectly constitutional ways to do so. Use them.

[cwb]

So Obama authorizes ass...does he recomend any?

[UNT90]

Let's say an assasination has been ordered. There is no way that the President is going to comment on that. Period. The information was obviously leaked, so why would he make it official by commenting on it? Same thing for the members of the SIC. If they knew about this, they would hold their tongue because it pertains to national security. Now, if they had no idea that this was going on, they would be all over the news, yelling and screaming about abuse of power.

And you are right, there is a constitutional issue involving both congress and the executive branch issuing an assasination order on an american trader. But I'm sure it's not the first time this issue has come up. The Supreme Court is who interprets these issues. See the previous article I posted on just how much leeway the Supreme Court will give a sitting President in a time of war (hell, just look at the Japanese internment camps for a gross violation of the constitution).

Edited April 15, 2010 by UNT90

[hickoryhouse]

This seems to me like an argument of do the ends justify the means....In this case I think someone had it right, I don't remember who, if he is in the field of battle take him out. If he is not shooting a weapon at our guys physically or in close proximity to someone who is we need to follow the law and bring him in. Perhaps that is not the most expedient route of disposing of this guy and the trouble he causes however it is the legal one, and the one that should be followed.

As a citizen of the US he is entitled to certain protections, whether he wants them or not, and we should do what we can to ensure that the law of the land is followed. Besides can you imagine the information that we can get from this guy when we capture him instead of kill him?

[EagleD]

For the record (There is a record, right?) I agree with Cerebus on this one.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

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?

--No... I was not at all opposed to Gitmo.... just how they ran it...in fact I would keep it open to some extent.

---Just do something with them... It should not take years to process the prisoners there... and then turn many loose when they were found to have done nothing. Even McCain opposed the water-boarding and much of what took place there .. most people just don't think that works and after a short time the info they might have known (if any) becomes obsolete and useless anyway. ... Finally they would just say anything just to get it to stop... I probably would and you too I imagine... even those who actually knew nothing.

---You constantly try to portray me much different than I am. I am financially conservative... Bush was a total liberal... doubled the debt.... First he should cut expenses and then taxes... not the other way around..... and what he did ran up the debt.... His actions increased the debt so much, and set off the T-party movement. The big problem now is we collect less taxes because of his some of his actions and because of UNEMPLOYMENT (they pay no or few taxes) So many of those who were paying capitol gains taxes on stock, sold at a loss then bought back at cheaper prices (which incresed the amount of their holdings actually) and are making making money as the stock prices go up but will owe no taxes until they sell... Meanwhile they are using those previous losses to offset what gains they now show on their few sales. [i am doing that to some extent and know more doing the same, just not worth 100's of millions as the super wealthy are] The debt will continue to climb for a while--- until the disasters of 2008 correct themselves and they can't use those losses to offset current gains. It will help when employment improves those are paying taxes again instead of unemployemnt checks (which also is a problem to the government now).

[UNTflyer]

The big problem now is we collect less taxes because of his some of his actions...

Not true. We collected more federal taxes in 2008 than we did in 2000, by about a half trillion dollars. That's what happens when you cut taxes, you end up increasing revenue due to increased economic activity.