Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens

[grasslands]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

 

[Charles_Main]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

Not that I am defending this, but the 3 words I put in bold. How do you know? How do you know the Facts are not checked, and verified? Exactly How many times has it been used to date??? Why do you assume that everyone in our Intelligence, and Defense community is a bunch of Lying assholes that can not be trusted at all? After all it is the word of those people that the Government would be using to carry out this power they claim to have.

Again not supporting the idea, just think your wording exposes you for someone who thinks anything to do with the CIA, NSA, or US Military must mean lies, deceit, and murder.

 

[grasslands]

50 Million Americans & 1 Billion People Want to Impeach Obama

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-r...d-1-billion-people-want-to-impeach-obama.html

 

[uscitizen]

Has Obama had Limbaugh killed yet?

I rest my case.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Oh fcs you're talking about the most dangerous Alqaeda guy around, in Yemen? Get a grip...

 

[waltky]

Ron Paul gonna impeach Obama...

Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul
10/3/11 : Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.

Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.” Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.” “I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

The comments once again put Paul at odds with his Republican rivals over foreign policy and the war on terror in the latest indication of how his foreign policy views stray far from Republican orthodoxy even in a GOP that’s taken on an increasingly isolationist bent. Candidates like Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney — who included the president in a list of people he commended in a statement released Friday — have generally been supportive of the killing. No one else in the field has spoken out against it. But Paul’s stuck with the civil libertarians who’ve criticized the targeted killing of an American citizen without public due process.

Paul, speaking at the University of New Hampshire’s Manchester campus as part of a brief swing through the state, also made another pitch for eliminating the federal income tax. “If our lives and our liberty are our own, we ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor,” he said. But he modulated a bit when asked about eliminating social welfare programs, offering a caution that he said “might be a bit too pragmatic for some.” “I have an ideal of what we should strive for and a goal, and that would be no social services,” he said. “But for me it’s trying to work our way out of this. … I don’t argue we should drop those cold. I don’t even believe in closing down the Federal Reserve in one day.”

Read more: Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

 

[Charles_Main]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Yemen - Salon.com

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

Lincoln did it to. It's called killing the Enemy.

 

[theHawk]

Declaring radical Muslims as traitors, long after they have already declared war on the US is hardly a call for impeachment.

To claim that these particular traitors weren't verified and checked, is disingenuous to say the least.

There are plenty of reasons to impeach Obama, this is not one of them.

 

[Mr. H.]

asslands, if you knew what the intel community knew - I think you would have shot the guy yourself given the chance.

 

[jgarden]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Yemen - Salon.com

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

1. Did "Anwar al Awlaki," a member of Al Qaeda, receive all the legal rights afforded to an American citizen - NO

2. Does keeping "al Awlaki" alive, an individual who had openly pledged to "fight jihad for the rest of my life," also endanger the lives of other innocent Americans whom the President has sworn to protect - YES

3. Would any of the 43 other America presidents have handled the "al Awlaki" assassination differently? - NO (If "grasslands" diagrees, let him making care to make a convincing case.)

4. Would any of the current Republican/Tea Party presidential candidates handled the "al Awlaki" assassination differently? - THAT WOULD MAKE AN INTERESTING QUESTIONING, BUT I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE AN OVERWHELMING "NO!"

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln did it to. It's called killing the Enemy.

Lincoln was the closest thing to Stalin ever to gain the Presidency.

You aren't helping your case.

 

[Mr. H.]

Most folks believe that Lincoln is dead, but you should see it on a Saturday night.

InterLinc: City of Lincoln & Lancaster County

 

[jgarden]

Lincoln did it to. It's called killing the Enemy.

Lincoln was the closest thing to Stalin ever to gain the Presidency.

You aren't helping your case.

I hope "bripat9643" is not intent on auditioning for Hank Williams Jr.'s job on "Monday Night Football" after a comment like that!

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln was the closest thing to Stalin ever to gain the Presidency.

You aren't helping your case.

I hope "bripat9643" is not intent on auditioning for Hank Williams Jr.'s job on "Monday Night Football" after a comment like that!

I state the simple truth. Lincoln was a tyrant who shut down 300 newspayers, had people arrested with a trial and thrown into a gulag, and even had Americans executed without a trial. His list of crimes is as almost extensive and despicable as Stalin's.

 

[jgarden]

Lincoln was the closest thing to Stalin ever to gain the Presidency.

You aren't helping your case.

I hope "bripat9643" is not intent on auditioning for Hank Williams Jr.'s job on "Monday Night Football" after a comment like that!

I state the simple truth. Lincoln was a tyrant who shut down 300 newspayers, had people arrested with a trial and thrown into a gulag, and even had Americans executed without a trial. His list of crimes is as almost extensive and despicable as Stalin's.

Deaths Attributed to Joseph Stalin

•Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
◦Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:

■Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
■Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
■Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
◦Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
◦Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago, ■Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
■Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
◦Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into: ■1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
■1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
■1939-45: 18,157,000
■1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
■TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

◦William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
◦Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38) ■Cited by Wallechinsky: ■Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
■Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.

◦MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

•And from the Lower Numbers school:
◦Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
◦Cited in Nove: ■Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
■Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
■Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
■Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

◦Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
◦Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
◦MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

The death totals directly attributed to Stalin's policies range from 20 to 66 million - these deaths are the numerical equivalent of approximately 35-100 American Civil Wars!

Perhaps "bripat9643" should familiarize himself with "Joseph Stalin's" record before making any more of these comparisons.

 

[westwall]

I hope "bripat9643" is not intent on auditioning for Hank Williams Jr.'s job on "Monday Night Football" after a comment like that!

I state the simple truth. Lincoln was a tyrant who shut down 300 newspayers, had people arrested with a trial and thrown into a gulag, and even had Americans executed without a trial. His list of crimes is as almost extensive and despicable as Stalin's.

If "bripat9643" had made these comments in Stalin's Russia, the secret police would already be knocking down his door!

His comments are however factual. The difference between Lincoln and Stalin is merely one of scale. Don't forget to toss Roosevelt in there too. The Japanese internment is a blight upon this countries history as well.

 

[bripat9643]

I hope "bripat9643" is not intent on auditioning for Hank Williams Jr.'s job on "Monday Night Football" after a comment like that!

I state the simple truth. Lincoln was a tyrant who shut down 300 newspayers, had people arrested with a trial and thrown into a gulag, and even had Americans executed without a trial. His list of crimes is as almost extensive and despicable as Stalin's.

Kill tally: Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death.

At least one million executed for political "offences".

At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive.

Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.

Perhaps "bripat9643" should familiarize himself with "Joseph Stalin" record before making any more of these comparisons. Stalin had almost approximately double the number of Americans who died in the Civil War executed as political prisoners.

Well, that makes Lincoln a perfect angel!

Lincoln ordered 700,000 Americans to their deaths. He built gulags and threw American citizens into them. He shut down over 300 newspapers.

You'll note that I said his crimes were ALMOST as extensive and despicable as Stalin's. You'll have to forgive him since he was the innovator who showed later totalitarian dictators how to practice their craft.

 

[bripat9643]

I state the simple truth. Lincoln was a tyrant who shut down 300 newspayers, had people arrested with a trial and thrown into a gulag, and even had Americans executed without a trial. His list of crimes is as almost extensive and despicable as Stalin's.

If "bripat9643" had made these comments in Stalin's Russia, the secret police would already be knocking down his door!

His comments are however factual. The difference between Lincoln and Stalin is merely one of scale. Don't forget to toss Roosevelt in there too. The Japanese internment is a blight upon this countries history as well.

It appears jgarden edited his post because I can no longer find the comment you quoted. If I had made the same comments during the Civil War, Lincoln would have thrown me into one of his gulags. That's why the comment was edited. It utterly incriminates Lincoln.

 

[jgarden]

Just give "bripat9643' enough rope and he just keeps "hanging" himself OVER and OVER and OVER again!

 

[editec]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Yemen - Salon.com

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

Has this been confirmed?

I kept clicking the links in that article hoping they'd lead me to the confirmation of this charge but they didn't.

If this is true? It is unconcionable.