Liability
Locked Account.
- Thread starter
- #61
As someone who seems to be perpetually opposed to anything our leaders in Washington are doing for the last 6 years or so, I find myself somewhat fearful of the power this gives the most powerful man in the free world.
Immie
If you believe (I don't, just to be clear) that this is some new "power" or claimed authority, I believe you are naive.
In point of fact, I suspect that it's not just many of our past Presidents who have done this kind of thing, but the leaders of other nations do it and have done it, too.
It seems to me that the only difference in the last two Administrations is that somehow it seems to have become fodder for litigation.
It seems to me to be pretty clear that we have sanctioned enemies in the past. There is even that story about how President Clinton had Osama bin Laden virtually speaking "in the cross-hairs" but wouldn't "pull the trigger." I seriously doubt that was the first time any President got the call to "make the call" on whether to take out an enemy leader. The power or authority has been presumed to flow from the President's position as the Commander in Chief.
What is less explainable is how any of this is subject to a judicial branch imprimatur.
Here is an interesting look at the topic from 2006. Targeted Killings - Council on Foreign Relations
Believing/knowing that it goes on and supporting it are two very different things.
BTW Thanks for the link. I didn't read all of it, but I did scan it and found it helpful.
Immie
I may have misinterpreted your post. I thought you were reacting to this as though it's something new.
I understand your reluctance. It is a terrible power. In a more rational world, not only would we not resort to such things, we wouldn't need to even contemplate such things. But the world is actually a fairly dark and dangerous place in the international arena.
That said, I cannot imagine that we would have had any moral qualms (and I don't believe we should have had any such qualms) about assassinating Adolf Hitler during WWII if we had the shot at pulling it off. I say the same thing about the Osama bin Laden and the asswipes of al qaeda, today.
If we could capture him alive with no muss and no fuss, and extract from him every scrap of intel we needed, that would be preferable to killing him. But short of that, killing him outright is a perfectly fine alternative. We have recently "taken out" some of the other al qaeda operational honchos. Was doing so "wrong?" I don't see it that way.