Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to?

[MinuteMan47]

when people are firing weapons at each other, people die. simple physics

why?

Was HE firing a weapon?

 

[rambone]

There was lead flying for 40+ minutes. OBL was a military target and he did not surrender. End of story.

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.

 

[rjstew317]

Was HE firing a weapon?

so if I hire body guards to protect me, and they are shooting at you on my behalf, am I innocent when you get shot?

 

[rjstew317]

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.

they landed with two, one hit the ground and was removed from commission. the entire mission was 40 minutes form start (which i assume is from take off) to finish.

 

[MinuteMan47]

so if I hire body guards to protect me, and they are shooting at you on my behalf, am I innocent when you get shot?

That's a stretch.

I agree deal with the people shooting at you, but when it's down to the last coward. Take his ass in.

By your logic, you kill all the armed men...and then when the last p**** is there pissing his pants you casually walk up and put a bullet in his head?


Go eat that sammich.

 

[rjstew317]

That's a stretch.

I agree deal with the people shooting at you, but when it's down to the last coward. Take his ass in.

By your logic, you kill all the armed men...and then when the last p**** is there pissing his pants you casually walk up and put a bullet in his head?


Go eat that sammich.

yup, "dead men tell no tales". and it's cheaper then the millions of dollars (if not more) we would have to spend on his trial. I look at it as reducing government spending.

 

[MinuteMan47]

yup, "dead men tell no tales". and it's cheaper then the millions of dollars (if not more) we would have to spend on his trial. I look at it as reducing government spending.

Dude. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

It could have been a money making machine.

 

[rjstew317]

unarmed is a stretch. I could kill you with my toothbrush. if you lack hands and feet, then you are truly"'unarmed"

 

[rjstew317]

Dude. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

It could have been a money making machine.

just did, and I agree. personally I would like to have seen him fight a rabid gorilla in the ring, but I'm sick like that.

 

[MinuteMan47]

unarmed is a stretch. I could kill you with my toothbrush. if you lack hands and feet, then you are truly"'unarmed"

I will be waiting for the headline...

"SWAT busts down man's door, kills him for having toothbrush"

 

[rjstew317]

I will be waiting for the headline...

"SWAT busts down man's door, kills him for having toothbrush"

got my

ready

 

[MTC]

Rambone, since you asked, I'll give another view.

He hasn't been combating anybody, hes been in exile. Hiding. We went into his home. Boom, headshot.

Exile from where? Nobody claimed him. They're called non-state actors for a reason. If it cannot be verified that the individual(s) who committed an act of war against the United States and/or its citizens were acting on orders of one or more nation-states, then those individuals themselves and any or all known accomplices are subject to the death penalty by any or all military means. And it is a military, not a domestic law enforcement matter. Just as well for any nation-state contemplating such acts, since they know their entire country (and their friends'), will likely be - as you put it in another thread where you criticized the decision of the commander on the ground - "vaporized".

[STRIKE]I thought an[/STRIKE] enemy [STRIKE]combatant was basically[/STRIKE] somebody [not a U.S. citizen] who is pointing [or firing] guns [or any other lethal weapon] at U.S. troops [STRIKE]occupying their country[/strike]...anywhere.

Hope this helps clarify things.

I don't see why its viewed as inflammatory to say that OBL was assassinated. Is it not the truth? If this is not assassination, then what is? I thought it was source of American pride that we can complete successful assassinations? Its not like Osama bin Laden is the first one.

Using the term "assassination" implies the individual had some sort of legitimate importance, usually reserved for heads of state or dignitaries. There is also the connotation that the "assassins" are the bad guys. I really hope you don't think the Navy Seals or any other unit of the United States military are the bad guys. I slept peacefully last night under the blanket of freedom that they provide. I don't question the manner in which they provide it.

Navy Seal Team 6: 'On a mission to kill not capture Osama bin Laden'

Go team, go!

I wouldn't use that term if it were some guy pointing an AK47 at a passing humvee. But to break into a suspect's home, on a "kill, not capture" mission, yes.

He's not a suspect. He's guilty. The penalty is death.

Admiral Yamamoto was shot down in an enemy transport bomber during WW2. I don't think that really equates well to us sneaking into Pakistan and shooting Bin Laden in his home.

Sneaking? Maybe you would prefer announcements blaring from loudspeakers. And you keep using the phrase, "in his home", as if it were just some dude with outstanding warrants sitting in his recliner in Kokomo.

Guys, if you want to make the case against what I'm saying, then lets hash it out. When is "targeted killing"/assassination permissible, and when is it not permissible? What are the dividing lines? I really want to know.

Others can explain it better. You can start with whether he is or is not a United States citizen. If so, then it is more a domestic law enforcement matter. If not, it is a national security/military matter, to be handled accordingly. All the more reason to be careful who you're handing out citizenship to.

I'm not even stating outright that the whole alleged OBL killing on 5/1/2011 was unjust or whatever.

Well it looks that way by your wording and implication.

And bringing this back home and personal, what about the 1,000,000+ people that are currently on the FBI watch list? YOU MUST LOOK AT THIS FROM A WIDER PERSPECTIVE THAN JUST OSAMA BIN LADEN. Were the Branch Davidians in Waco "enemy combatants"? What protects ME from this government, and where is it written? I can't accept on faith alone that the U.S. won't do this to political enemies for other, less televised reasons.

Separate matter. Those at the highest levels of government who were responsible - directly or indirectly - for the murder and incineration of the citizens at Waco - including one Attorney General who "took full responsibility" - were never punished.

Yeah, I know. I say WTF every time people say "Illegals have no rights... round em up and ##### them."

If they are not United States citizens, they do not have the privileges and immunities of citizens. In this case, "privileges and immunities" is a term of art. Not that citizens are immune from liability for criminal activity, or that rights become privileges because of the wording in that one sentence. However, for aliens, United States citizenship is a privilege to be applied for. Once granted, one is expected to be loyal or to bear allegiance to the nation.

For the sake of argument, who should be allowed to make that judgement, besides a court? This is important. Our Republic is based on the Rule of Law, and I want to know the parameters for assigning guilt outside of the Justice System.

Those charged with the task and duty of defending the nation. When attacked by an outside force, it becomes a national security/military matter. Anyone doing so just signed their own death warrant. "Due process" is a bullet, or much worse.

I don't really care who votes "other", I just wanted to know what other possibilities I am missing.

Wanted to try to explain or offer another view. It is so much faster and easier in person.

You could walk into any murder trial and say that kind of thing. Due process and legal representation are for the accused, not the victims. Due process remains important no matter what the crime. That's why half the Bill of Rights is dedicated to protecting the accused.

It's "We the People of the United States", not "we the people of the world". The United States of America, not the united states of the world. The penalty for attacking my country is death. Sentence to be carried out immediately. No phone call. No lawyer. No appeal.

This argument isn't for OBL. Its for the American people who want to know the limits on their government.

You said earlier you were only speaking for yourself.

Somebody please just tell me that the SEALS had a signed Pakistani warrant to search his home, and OBL resisted. It works that way over here every day of the week.

WTF? SEALS don't get warrants. And they don't take orders from third world ****hole governments.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

Rather than continuing to spew your Hate America First message, why not run for President yourself? Run on your lollipops and unicorn platform. Tell everyone how there is no evil and therefore it is morally offensive to confront it. Let me know how it works out for you.

If you threaten to take down the tallest buildings in the world and then actually pull it off, you should hide under a rock, not behind a concrete wall. Ooo Rah to everyone involved in ridding the world of UBL, regardless of their contribution.

I saw a lot of things I agreed with including the distinction between military action against a combat target and assasination but this sums the whole situation up to a tee.

I think the intitial question may be inherently wrong too. It seems what most people are discussing is whether the POTUS "Should" be able to have the "Right" to assasinate anyone not "Can" he. Obviously he and many other people Military/Government Official or not "Can", it happens everyday.

On the issue of should, of course not. That decision needs to be measured and contemplated in extreme detail and care. As great as it would be to give everyone the right to trail some people are in fact so inherently evil that the most prudent thing to do is exterminate them with extreme prejudice.

 

[rambone]

Here's a follow-up from Napolitano today.

The Usama Precedent

 

[tv1217]

Seriously, when you try to out-jackass the likes of Kim Jong il, Hitler, and Richard Simmons, you've earned what's coming to you.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

This artlicle pretty much sums it up. No the president should never have the power to be able to assasinate US citizens anywhere in the world without due process. That is a tyranical dictator.

 

[mammynun]

Here's a break down of Executive Order 12333 that (sort of) prohibits assassinations.... it also contains what the gov't and legal community defines as "assassination." FWIW, the Executive branch (i.e. the President) wrote the thing, and several different administrations have changed it's scope... draw your own conclusions.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

This artlicle pretty much sums it up. No the president should never have the power to be able to assasinate US citizens anywhere in the world without due process. That is a tyranical dictator.

One issue with that article. 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.


If Bin Laden was assassinated then every CIA agent, Drone driver, SF operator & military sniper is an assassin.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think it's comical that you ignored all the parts where he asked you to clarify and justify your position with any kind of logic and consistency, instead resorting directly to insults and personal attacks as usual. I read Article 2 Section 2. It didn't answer any of the important points of this debate.

I am open minded on this subject, and I find this discussion interesting. However I do think that if you believe that the president should have the power to order the death of a human being, you should also clarify what limits this power should have (if any). Right now he's doing it thousands of miles away to people you don't know. What will you be saying when it starts happening closer to home? Or do you just not believe that a politician would ever kill someone for personal or political gain?

The Constitution clearly appoints the President Commander in Chief. He and he alone has the authority to direct the Army and Navy and Militia when active under the Constitution. He alone has the authority to prosecute war authorized by Congress. That is what he did. One less military leader to attack America. Today is a beautiful day.

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?

The President's actions were entirely consistent with his powers as Commander in Chief. No amount of dust kicked up by stampeding unicorns can or will change that.

 

[dross]

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.

Take pacifism. The only way pacifism works is as a parasite philosophy feeding off the efforts of those willing to fight. Pacifism can only exist in a country that is at the same time willing to send some to fight and to let others refrain. Otherwise the pacifists will all die out.

The same exists for fighting terrorists. They exploit our adherence to ideals. We don't want to kill children, so they hide behind children. We don't want to destroy religious buildings, so they shoot at us from mosques. We don't want to violate other countries "rights" so they conduct operations while hiding in other countries. We don't want to have women get their throats slit by boxcutters, so they get a pilot to open the cockpit door by doing just 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.

Personally, I don't think our values ARE self-destructive. I think a misunderstanding of the proper application of our values that has become the common way of thinking are a perversion of our values and THAT is what is leading to our potential destruction.

If we've really reached the point that we can't take a guy who knows where the next bomb is going off and submit him to the same procedure we use to train thousands of our servicemen, a procedure conducted with a doctor and a psychologist present, and all the time him being reassured that he is not going to die, if that's too rough for the people who have vowed to wipe us and our way of life off the earth, then maybe we've grown too weak and soft to deserve to be here.

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.

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.

I want to spit.