Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to?

[rambone]

Should the president be able to assassinate any "terrorist" he wants to?

In an age when tens of thousands of American citizens are on "terror watch lists," do we really support giving the president the power to assassinate people at will, intentionally denying them a trial?


Judge Napolitano interviews former CIA terrorist hunter, Michael Scheuer.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8crxW0WSHo[/ame]

 

[ATF Consumer]

We, the people...have lost control of our government.

 

[rambone]

Okay people, if you vote "other" then please explain.

 

[Pocketman]

Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to - no.
Can he assassinate terrorists: THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

 

[rambone]

Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to - no.
Can he assassinate terrorists: THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

Okay, I understand Bush II thinks its all good. Of course he supports the power to assassinate.

But what about trials, due process, the constitution?

I'll say again that the government looks at a large number of Americans as potential terrorists. Without trial, killing suspects nothing better than murder. You have to look at the bigger picture, that these rules are the same rules that apply to you and me.

Do I have to start posting all the government reports that point out ordinary behaviors as suspicious terror activities?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Okay people, if you vote "other" then please explain.

Did you know you SEE your poll results?

 

[tv1217]

I think it should be limited to high profile targets like Hitler, Tojo, bin Laden, Kim, etc


Adding to that though, if the option of capture is just as viable, I think that should be the first option.

 

[snapping turtle]

Only if they resist, only if they resist. A complete assinasion should not be allowed.

 

[femurphy77]

They'll do whatever they think they can get away with!

 

[rambone]

Adding to that though, if the option of capture is just as viable, I think that should be the first option.

Well, the U.S. is openly saying this was an assassination mission and that capture was not a priority.

Did you know you SEE your poll results?

Here's what I see.

No. Taking a suspect alive should always be a priority.

9 47.37%
Yes, as long as the suspect is not a U.S. citizen.

1 5.26%
Yes, as long as the suspect is located on foreign soil.

0 0%
Yes, as long as the suspect is not a U.S. citizen, located on foreign soil.

4 21.05%
Other

5 26.32%

 

[tv1217]

Yeah, if he was unarmed, then they should have tried to take him alive.


But if there's intelligence indicating a targets location, and sending guys in to take him alive isn't viable, but we can send a sniper or predator drone to take care of it. I don't see the problem.

 

[Dogman]

Should the president be able to assassinate any "terrorist" he wants to?

I doubt that the president has the skills to assassinate anyone.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I doubt that the president has the skills to assassinate anyone.

No, just liberty.

 

[Dogman]

No, just liberty.

Very true.

 

[dom1104]

 

[billybob44]

+1 on this..

I think it should be limited to high profile targets like Hitler, Tojo, bin Laden, Kim, etc


Adding to that though, if the option of capture is just as viable, I think that should be the first option.

I agree to this statement, and fully support the Commander in Chief to authorize the "Removal" of any PROVEN threat to the security of the American People.
With that said: I do believe the person in the position of Commander in Chief at this time, is a security question in itself.
With this in mind, I have to answer-Other..

 

[dross]

It's not assassination. Your term is wrong and inflammatory. OBL was a combatant, just as is any Army general in a time of war.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Other: Yes, the prez gets three free ones.


If Bin Laden was assassinated then all combatants are assassinated.

 

[Pocketman]

1943 - Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, was intentionally targetted and killed over the Pacific. Assassination?

As dross' posted, assassination is probably not the best terminology for military targets, which OBL was.

 

[dross]

1943 - Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, was intentionally targetted and killed over the Pacific. Assassination?

As dross' posted, assassination is probably not the best terminology for military targets, which OBL was.

It's only the best terminology if your one constant tiresome theme is that every single thing about our government is completely and totally screwed up and is equivalent to every oppressive regime that has existed throughout history.

Some people have no sense of when they're becoming a parody of themselves.