Obama says he has the authority to kill civilians

[TakeAStepBack]

The use of drones is not different than the use of Bombs against Dresden in WW II, Big Boy dropped on Hiroshima and Cruise Missiles used against Saddam's sons in Iraq - Collateral damage was the result. In fact Bush and Obama used more precise weapons and both did so in undeclared wars vis a vis FDR & Truman.

Presidents have to make difficult decisions and those made by a Commander-in-Chief are many times life and death ones. It is easy to be an armchair QB, I personally support the use of drones when used against the command and control leadership of those who have dedicated their life to killing Americans.

While I don't support Capital Punishment, per se, I have no problem with executing those who are not in custody and actively engaged in planning the death of our citizens.

Rule of law be damned. Planning the death of Americans? Can you back that up with any evidence. Lets talk about the 16 year old boy who was assassinated. Was he actively planning to kill americans?

 

[Redfish]

they loved the idea under Bush but they never thought a black man would get this power

wrong and wrong. But Bush did not get a legal opinion from his DOJ that it was legal to kill americans who were SUSPECTED of being tied to terrorism. If he did I would have been pushing for impeachment.

you need to get over the racial bullshit, dislike of obama has nothing to do with the fact that he is half white.

BTW, why do you refer to someone that is half black half white, as a black man?

 

[Truthmatters]

War time powers. I would have supported Bush on this. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The President has the constitutional right to wage war on America's enemies, foreign and domestic.

As do we, the citizens of the United States.

exactly right, if the govt becomes an enemy of the country, then the citizens have the right and duty to remove them from power. The best way is at the ballot box, but when the ballot box is stuffed, other methods may be necessary.

When the govt believes that it has the right to murder american citizens without any trial and based solely on the suspicion that the person may be tied to terrorism, then we are already halfway down the slippery slope to anarchy.

If the Bush admin had done this, there would already be an impeachment in process.

prove they didnt

 

[Truthmatters]

they loved the idea under Bush but they never thought a black man would get this power

wrong and wrong. But Bush did not get a legal opinion from his DOJ that it was legal to kill americans who were SUSPECTED of being tied to terrorism. If he did I would have been pushing for impeachment.

you need to get over the racial bullshit, dislike of obama has nothing to do with the fact that he is half white.

BTW, why do you refer to someone that is half black half white, as a black man?

prove he didnt

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Shut up, you racist.

 

[Redfish]

The use of drones is not different than the use of Bombs against Dresden in WW II, Big Boy dropped on Hiroshima and Cruise Missiles used against Saddam's sons in Iraq - Collateral damage was the result. In fact Bush and Obama used more precise weapons and both did so in undeclared wars vis a vis FDR & Truman.

Presidents have to make difficult decisions and those made by a Commander-in-Chief are many times life and death ones. It is easy to be an armchair QB, I personally support the use of drones when used against the command and control leadership of those who have dedicated their life to killing Americans.

While I don't support Capital Punishment, per se, I have no problem with executing those who are not in custody and actively engaged in planning the death of our citizens.

Hmmmm, please list the americans who were targeted in any of those actions.

 

[Truthmatters]

White House won?t deny report saying it approved killing of American without trial | The Raw Story



“After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said,” the Post said. “The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose ‘a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,’ said one former intelligence official.

“The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, ‘it doesn’t really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,’ said a senior administration official. ‘They are then part of the enemy.’”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1m03u)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama claims and orders that he has the authority to kill American civilians anywhere outside the Country any time he decides it is needed. All without Judicial, military or legal opinions actions or considerations.

His policy allows high level officials to simply say a person might be a threat and can not be captured, then with no consolation with the Military or Judiciary or Congress a drone attack to KILL that person can be ordered. A US Citizen, deprived of due process and all his Constitutional rights based solely on the Opinion of the President or high ranking officials.

Go ahead Obama supporters explain to us how this is legal or Constitutional. Show us you support the outright murder of anyone Obama feels like killing for just about any reason.,

They aren't civilians if they are enemy combatants.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So as long as the government has arbitrarily designated someone an enemy combatant, then it's ok to assassinate them? Who makes this decision about being a combatant? Does a combatant need to be carrying a weapon? Or can they just be killed for being in public?

Should they be tried in Abstentia to determine guilt of being an enemy, or will just the word of a couple officials do for you?

 

[Truthmatters]

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes


After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.

 

[Truthmatters]

No president should have this power.


It should be ended for ever

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionary denigration of the admin's actions to take the war to America's enemies are noted. Noted very carefully.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now why is the right ONLY mad that a black man got that power?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of them will say they were mad at Bush, but they weren't. That is merely a lie by them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The use of drones is not different than the use of Bombs against Dresden in WW II, Big Boy dropped on Hiroshima and Cruise Missiles used against Saddam's sons in Iraq - Collateral damage was the result. In fact Bush and Obama used more precise weapons and both did so in undeclared wars vis a vis FDR & Truman.

Presidents have to make difficult decisions and those made by a Commander-in-Chief are many times life and death ones. It is easy to be an armchair QB, I personally support the use of drones when used against the command and control leadership of those who have dedicated their life to killing Americans.

While I don't support Capital Punishment, per se, I have no problem with executing those who are not in custody and actively engaged in planning the death of our citizens.

Rule of law be damned. Planning the death of Americans? Can you back that up with any evidence. Lets talk about the 16 year old boy who was assassinated. Was he actively planning to kill americans?

I don't know the details re a 16 year old boy. But, how about Kadafi's (sic?) infant daughter killed when Reagan ordered our planes attack Libya? You may consider thus an apples and oranges comparison, I don't unless much more detail is known.

I know this is like asking a snake to change its habits, but how about not being a hypocrite so often?

 

[Truthmatters]

the republican party only cares ab out this because there is a black president

 

[JakeStarkey]

the republican party only cares ab out this because there is a black president

Sure, TM, sure. There are plenty of racist in the Dems as well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So as long as the government has arbitrarily designated someone an enemy combatant, then it's ok to assassinate them?

No, such a decision should not be arbitrary.

Who makes this decision about being a combatant?

Currently the alphabet agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, NCIS, DIA, ATF, etc.) gather intelligence and make a recommendation to the Executive Branch, the ultimate decision rested with the President.

Does a combatant need to be carrying a weapon?

They don't need to be carrying a weapon. People that plan, train, recruit, issue the operational orders, launder money, etc are just as quilty of murdering women and children as the one who pulls a trigger or flys an airplane into a sky scrapper.

Or can they just be killed for being in public?

Typically people aren't killed for just being in pubic. High Value Targets are typically killed because there were instrumental in the killing of others.

Should they be tried in Abstentia to determine guilt of being an enemy, or will just the word of a couple officials do for you?

Here is the fundmental problem with perspective, which highlights two important points:

1. Civilians think they should have access to all information regarding military operations, even though the releases of such information would compromise the methods involved (and likely reduce it effectiveness or repeatability or in the case of HUMINT get someone killed).

2. Secondly, that this is a "judicial" matter to be handled in a court. This isn't about proving a crime, it's about National Security and the ability for the military to take action against High Value Targets in a time sensitive way.​

Trial in absentia is possible (if we change some laws), but there will be those that complain because then the defendant would be denied the right to face their accuser.

Better is to treat it as a what it is, during a time of war, as a National Security issue. The ABC agencies develop their intel, the Executive Branch makes their decision, and if the HVT is US Citizen to be placed on the list, that case is reviewed under Congressional oversight (so it's not the ABC agencies and not the President alone making the call). 3rd party review would be applied.



>>>>

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama claims and orders that he has the authority to kill American civilians anywhere outside the Country any time he decides it is needed. All without Judicial, military or legal opinions actions or considerations.

His policy allows high level officials to simply say a person might be a threat and can not be captured, then with no consolation with the Military or Judiciary or Congress a drone attack to KILL that person can be ordered. A US Citizen, deprived of due process and all his Constitutional rights based solely on the Opinion of the President or high ranking officials.

Go ahead Obama supporters explain to us how this is legal or Constitutional. Show us you support the outright murder of anyone Obama feels like killing for just about any reason.,

They aren't civilians if they are enemy combatants.

Where is that in the Constitution, and who gets to make that call?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now why is the right ONLY mad that a black man got that power?

Probably because Obama is the first President to claim this power outright.