Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to?

[MinuteMan47]

got my
(tinfoil)
ready

You're the one who said a toothbrush could be considered a weapon....Not me.

 

[jsn_mooney]

YES.If not, then what is the point of being President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth?

 

[rjstew317]

You're the one who said a toothbrush could be considered a weapon....Not me.

my point was that just about anything can be used as weapon.

 

[Pocketman]

A 40 minute shootout? Source?

I have read that they were on the ground for 40 minutes because their helicopter broke down in his back yard, and they were forced to destroy it. Then waited for extraction.

OK, let me revise my statment: There was lead flying. OBL was a military target and he did not surrender. End of story.

Rambone, I sort of see where you are coming from, but as I posted in my first reply, there is a huge difference between taking out a dangerous fugitive and "giving the president the power to assassinate people at will, intentionally denying them a trial?"

There were outstanding warrants for OBL. This wasn't just a presidential whim.

 

[MinuteMan47]

@ dross


We owe him no protection. The SOB deserves to rot in hell. But, IMO the way it went down leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

Again just my opinion, but bringing him back to US soil ALIVE, should have been the mission's objective. Then, with due process and documented proof, we make an example of the sheep ****er. Let it be known, that when the United States gets a hold of your ass then you will wish we had shot you dead when we found you. If we are worried about costs, then take it from the $1.whatever BILLION we have given to Pakistan and use it from there. Time Square would have been buzzing if we displayed his execution there live on the big screens.

I don't know though, maybe terrorists are fearless, which is why they strap bombs to their own bodies.

Al Qaeda is just going to move on down the line to the next idiot.

Who will be the next Boogeyman?





Edit : $20 Billion in aid to Pakistan over last 8 years.

US Congress wants Pakistan aid cut - World News - IBNLive

 

[Ramen]

I think it boils down to whether the target is engaged in conflict with the US.

A military commander who was at war with us but now isn't (through a treaty, cease-fire, etc.) shouldn't be open for assassination. That doesn't mean they wouldn't face justice for actions commanded, just that they would get a "day in court" as you will.

OBL was most likely still actively engaged against the US. So he is open to assassination, although personally I prefer live capture, if it is possible without getting our guys killed.

I think I would definitely be against "kill on sight" had he put out a video saying he was no longer at war against the US and went and hid in some remote African village. Then I think capture is the way to go. But as far as we know, he didn't stop being part of Al Quaeda.

 

[rambone]

When it comes to terrorism, every house, street and field is a possible battlefield. An individual's relationship to a "battlefield" has nothing to do with anything. There is no such thing as a front line and a home front. The Long War is about individuals and small groups of people going at each other in ways that you can't apply classic military or police labels to.

Well, they've attacked America so we must be part of the battlefield too. Might as well roll out Martial Law and stop the anticipation. Anything goes in the Long Neverending War. Constitutions are no good on the battlefield. Ooh rah.

I don't live in a world dominated by slippery slopes where none exist. I do not consider the removal of the leader of an armed force bent on the destruction of America morally or actually equivalent to popping crackhead Johnny. Why not wait for the use of assassins by dictators discussion for the day that it actually occurs?

No slippery slopes eh? Your unicorn must have traction control.

I don't really understand how the same people who say that Obama is a socialist America-destroying fascist marxist coward atheist tyrannical nazi pinko communist usurper.... are some of the same people who unquestionably would devote limitless power to his command to kill people in their homes without due process. Osama isn't the first, and he won't be the last... Just the present example.

In our country, we have certain values and beliefs. If those beliefs, however, conflict with our survival, it is our beliefs that must be considered and adjusted, not our survival. Any ethical system that has your own destruction built in to it is a morally corrupt system.

If that's true, then we should be holding the debate in Congress and amending the Constitution to reflect modern times. Could we agree on that?

To believe that these people who recognize no rights, no mercy as it extends to us, whose very religion interpretations and societal rules allow them to exact any form of brutality on us, to believe we owe them some form of protection that we have built here over 200 years is to require our destruction be built into adherence to our values.

There are no such thing as selective rights and selective protections. I know you understand that.

If we've reached a point where we can't conduct a military operation against the head of an organization sworn to bring us down and which as conducted multiple operations against us and other free people in the world, if we're really navel-gazing over killing the commander of not even a rogue nation, but an outlaw organization, because our own values supposedly won't allow it, then perhaps we were a bad experiment.

Osama is probably a really, really bad guy. That's what the TV told me anyways. But just because the target was 'probably guilty' this time doesn't mean that the next one will be. I just think capture should be left as priority #1 when we are strategically going to break into a suspect's house and get'em. That's not to say that you don't conduct the military operation at all.

Maybe we should just give the bully our lunch money. He's probably just a sad misunderstood boy, and after all, the old-maid teacher says two wrongs don't make a right and it's wrong to hit back.

This analogy stinks. You analogy needs to be about government (not a timid kid) apprehending a murder suspect. So, do they leave room for due process, or order the SWAT Team to kill on sight? Nobody is saying to "do nothing" or "hand over your lunch money."

 

[Pocketman]

I cannot help but believe if Osama was alive and in U.S. custody, there would be an airliner (or other large soft target) a week taken hostage in efforts to have him exchanged.

 

[rambone]

YES.If not, then what is the point of being President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth?

Clearly there is no point, if you can't act like a king.

I think it boils down to whether the target is engaged in conflict with the US.

A military commander who was at war with us but now isn't (through a treaty, cease-fire, etc.) shouldn't be open for assassination. That doesn't mean they wouldn't face justice for actions commanded, just that they would get a "day in court" as you will.

OBL was most likely still actively engaged against the US. So he is open to assassination, although personally I prefer live capture, if it is possible without getting our guys killed.

You've laid out a clear distinction to my question, like I was asking for. +1

I would like to have these kinds of distinctions codified in law. I am sick and tired of us making up the boundaries of executive power on the fly. It needs to be in the constitution, not just in some Executive Order. I would hope people would agree.

 

[rambone]

This is from a few months ago, before OBL was killed again.

Like I have been saying, OBL is not the only guy we've assassinated (pick your term), and he won't be the last. What are the limits, and where are they defined??



Court Dismisses Targeted Killing Case On Procedural Grounds Without Addressing Merits

"If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."

 

[Garb]

After, not during - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

call me crazy...

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Well, they've attacked America so we must be part of the battlefield too. Might as well roll out Martial Law and stop the anticipation. Anything goes in the Long Neverending War. Constitutions are no good on the battlefield. Ooh rah.

Which goes to show you the term battlefield is misleading, and that the idea that someone shouldn't be shot just because they were "nowhere near a battlefield" is an ignorant belief. Bin Laden was an overall commander, financier & organiser so we should have used administration & accounting to fight him personally them? Just because he didn't use a gun doesn't mean he wasn't a dangerous individual.

More people have died by the pen than the sword and this man and his ideas have lead to tens of thousands of people dying, and many more scared physically or mentally. The world is full of hard choices and compromises that most people could never understand. The world is a better place without Bin Laden.

 

[Garb]

Which goes to show you the term battlefield is misleading, and that the idea that someone shouldn't be shot just because they were "nowhere near a battlefield" is an ignorant belief. Bin Laden was an overall commander, financier & organiser so we should have used administration & accounting to fight him personally them? Just because he didn't use a gun doesn't mean he wasn't a dangerous individual.

More people have died by the pen than the sword and this man and his ideas have lead to tens of thousands of people dying, and many more scared physically or mentally. The world is full of hard choices and compromises that most people could never understand. The world is a better place without Bin Laden.

I wouldn't say it was ignorant. If he was shooting back at them then yes, shooting him was completely necessary. What has me worried is if they went in intending to kill him regardless of whether he was shooting at them or not. He was a high profile terror suspect, not a foot soldier.

 

[dross]

If that's true, then we should be holding the debate in Congress and amending the Constitution to reflect modern times. Could we agree on that?

This is a bizarre statement. This has NOTHING to do with the Constitution. The Constitution applies to citizens and invited guests on U.S. soil, and maybe even to to non-combatant univited guests. It does not apply to combatants.

The Constitution is our country's imperfect manifestation of natural rights. It's not the same as natural rights themselves. We can recognize others' natural rights without following the Constitution. We follow the Constitution because it's the law of the land here. It's not in Afghanistan.

OBL is an enemy combatant. He is a legitimate target of our military. We can kill him or capture him or do neither based only on our own interests.

What standard are you operating under? If in WWII we found out about a meeting of Hitler's generals would we have been wrong to drop a bomb on the building? Would that have been assassination? What about Rommel? He opposed Hitler. What was he guilty of?

What if I'm a sniper and I shoot at an unarmed enemy while he goes to the shower on his base? He's not shooting at me? Perhaps he was forced into service? Perhaps he's guilty of nothing. Shouldn't he get a fair trial rather than have me "assassinate" him?

What about when we bomb a military target and we KNOW that some innocent civilians would be killed? Should that keep us from dropping the bomb?

There are no such thing as selective rights and selective protections. I know you understand that.

Yes, there are selective protections. The Constitution affords certain protections to citizens, and a different set of protections - lesser protections - for trials of enemy soldiers. The Geneve Conventions have one set of protections for enemy soldiers in uniform and in some cases NO protections for other combatants. What are you even talking about?

Osama is probably a really, really bad guy. That's what the TV told me anyways. But just because the target was 'probably guilty' this time doesn't mean that the next one will be. I just think capture should be left as priority #1 when we are strategically going to break into a suspect's house and get'em. That's not to say that you don't conduct the military operation at all.

That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't carry the weight of a definitive moral judgment, however. OBL is a legitimate target, and BTW, it wasn't just the "TV" or our government who told you he's a bad guy, HE told you himself.

Capturing him may have been a good idea, or it may not have been. It is not, however, a morally superior choice just because you would have preferred it to be so.

This analogy stinks. You analogy needs to be about government (not a timid kid) apprehending a murder suspect. So, do they leave room for due process, or order the SWAT Team to kill on sight? Nobody is saying to "do nothing" or "hand over your lunch money."

"Murder suspect." No, he's an ENEMY. There's a difference. You apprehend murder suspects. You kill or capture enemies, depending on your OWN INTERESTS.

 

[tv1217]

Yeah, really wish they'd gotten him alive. I don't have much of an opinion on waterboarding, but if there's one MFer that needed it, it was him.


Maybe OBL had some dirt on POTUS

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I wouldn't say it was ignorant. If he was shooting back at them then yes, shooting him was completely necessary. What has me worried is if they went in intending to kill him regardless of whether he was shooting at them or not. He was a high profile terror suspect, not a foot soldier.

Terror suspect? Don't make me laugh. The man has admitted to the deed several times, i don't need a formal court proclamation to tell me otherwise.

So we should only shoot foot soldiers then? How about officers, or is that ungentlemanly? How about technicians that make bombs, or the guys who plant them? What about suicide bombers? How about video camera operators? None of them are foot soldiers, should they be immune to being shot since they are not foot soldiers? Should we not shoot at moving trucks since the driver isn't a foot soldier and he may get hit?

The man was a legit military target and they made the decision to kill instead of capture. The nature of war.

 

[rambone]

This is a bizarre statement. This has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

The powers of the U.S. Government should ALWAYS have something to do with the constitution. No matter how vague and infinitely interpretable the document is, the U.S. Government should ALWAYS be able to point back to a piece of the constitution that gives it the power to do what it is doing.

The Constitution applies to citizens and invited guests on U.S. soil, and maybe even to to non-combatant univited guests. It does not apply to combatants.

So any illegal immigrant who commits a gun crime can be tortured and held without trial? Does not compute! The constitution doesn't say anything about combatants. If we want to have a combatant amendment, then lets specify that the U.S. Government can execute them on sight without a trial, any amount of time after the commission of the crime.

Unless that combative person is killed in the act of violence, you better get that warrant. That's why these labels and selective rights for selective people are a sham. Anybody the government wants to abuse, just needs a label smacked on his head. Next thing you know, we'll have militia groups being labeled as enemy combatants and being denied Due Process.

OBL is an enemy combatant. He is a legitimate target of our military. We can kill him or capture him or do neither based only on our own interests.

I hope I never get such a label. Which court could I appeal to?

What standard are you operating under? If in WWII we found out about a meeting of Hitler's generals would we have been wrong to drop a bomb on the building? Would that have been assassination? What about Rommel? He opposed Hitler. What was he guilty of?

What if I'm a sniper and I shoot at an unarmed enemy while he goes to the shower on his base? He's not shooting at me? Perhaps he was forced into service? Perhaps he's guilty of nothing. Shouldn't he get a fair trial rather than have me "assassinate" him?

What about when we bomb a military target and we KNOW that some innocent civilians would be killed? Should that keep us from dropping the bomb?

How can we be at war with individuals? Last I heard we were looking for WMDs and searching the entire Middle-East for the 9/11 hijackers. When will it end? We invade country after country, **** off the locals, and then call everyone who objects a terrorist.

I don't have a problem with the word assassination. Do I have a moral problem with assassinating Nazis during a declared war? No. Do I have a legal problem with assassinating vaguely defined enemy combatants in a Worldwide 'War' on 'Terrorists'? Yes.

I just want to see our government specify the limits to the power. If there are limits, then they must be a secret! From my perspective, my government can kill anybody they want.

 

[phylodog]

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

 

[edporch]

I voted "Other" because the President can order the assassination of anybody he wants to if he can find somebody to follow the order, or even do it himself if he has the guts.

It's up to the House and Senate to impeach and convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors...

 

[Garb]

Terror suspect? Don't make me laugh. The man has admitted to the deed several times, i don't need a formal court proclamation to tell me otherwise.

So we should only shoot foot soldiers then? How about officers, or is that ungentlemanly? How about technicians that make bombs, or the guys who plant them? What about suicide bombers? How about video camera operators? None of them are foot soldiers, should they be immune to being shot since they are not foot soldiers? Should we not shoot at moving trucks since the driver isn't a foot soldier and he may get hit?

The man was a legit military target and they made the decision to kill instead of capture. The nature of war.

Lots of people admit to things they didn't do for a variety of reasons. Technicians who make bombs and guys who plant them? Do we know for a fact who did it? Did they do it on the battlefield (let's assume the battlefield is an area in which there are open military engagements going on). I'm sorry, I'm not for shooting at people who aren't openly engaging us. Of course, I think we should just pull out of the war, that would be a much better solution.