Can the president assassinate anyone he wants to?

[hem_ker]

So, if the question is "can" he... that's a pretty open/shut case. The Clinton's had some pretty "questionable" situations on their hands. Always makes you wonder what goes on behind closed doors. Do I hear the Bourne music?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

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.

While the US can pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan, at this point it would cause more harm than good and would have a negative effect on the Long War. Unless you want the US to become totally isolationist the Long War is nowhere near finished and ending the wars in the middle east will not stop terrorism.

 

[rambone]

I'm just going to throw this into this mix as well. Reason Magazine points out an executive order which bans any government employee from participating or planning an assassination. Now we just need to tackle the linguistic game of figuring out whether Osama Bin Laden was assassinated or not.


Dead or Alive - Reason Magazine

According to a still-binding executive order originally issued by President Gerald Ford in 1976 and later slightly modified and reissued by both President Jimmy Carter and President Ronald Reagan, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”

 

[Expat]

I'm just going to throw this into this mix as well. Reason Magazine points out an executive order which bans any government employee from participating or planning an assassination. Now we just need to tackle the linguistic game of figuring out whether Osama Bin Laden was assassinated or not.


Dead or Alive - Reason Magazine

And if Obama says he issued a secret order that he can take a mulligan for this one?

 

[dross]

I'm just going to throw this into this mix as well. Reason Magazine points out an executive order which bans any government employee from participating or planning an assassination. Now we just need to tackle the linguistic game of figuring out whether Osama Bin Laden was assassinated or not.


Dead or Alive - Reason Magazine

It's not a "linguistic game."

You are the one changing the meaning of the word to fit your agenda. An assassination is a political murder of someone with whom we are not at war.

Killing an enemy general is not an assassination. Killing a political leader with whom we are at war is not an assassination. For example, Hitler would have been a legitimate military target during WWII.

Spare me the argument that OBL didn't represent a country. That just moves his death farther away from being eligible for the term. The fact that he has an outlaw organization that declared war on the U.S. doesn't make it more difficult to kill him legitimately, quite the opposite.

There is no requirement that an enemy must be shooting at you at the moment you kill him. The fact that he IS an enemy makes him a legitimate target.

The fact that they don't wear uniforms and don't have a country shouldn't be a shield to protect them from the war they started.

Your logic has broken down. You've decided that the U.S. government is so corrupt and evil that everything they do is bad, and you just work backward from that conclusion.

 

[edporch]

I'm just going to throw this into this mix as well. Reason Magazine points out an executive order which bans any government employee from participating or planning an assassination. Now we just need to tackle the linguistic game of figuring out whether Osama Bin Laden was assassinated or not.


Dead or Alive - Reason Magazine

But even if the President openly violated this executive order, there'd still need to be the votes to impeach and convict him.
If not, he'd get by with it.

 

[starcrack]

Right. Assassination isn't a military device. It's purely a political act. That's the main difference I think some are failing to observe here.

As such, you need to look at it through the eyes of a politician, the actual career professionals that make these decisions. You think most politicians say first, "well we should do this because it's the right thing to do"? Hell no. It's almost always clear what they want to do, the only question is if you can get away with it.

 

[Garb]

While the US can pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan, at this point it would cause more harm than good and would have a negative effect on the Long War. Unless you want the US to become totally isolationist the Long War is nowhere near finished and ending the wars in the middle east will not stop terrorism.

And you think continuing them will? Open your eyes, The feds want control of every aspect of our lives here, why would the not want the same for foreign countries? This war has everything to do with control, and very little to do with terrorism. If it were about terrorism, we would actually be fighting a war instead of blowing billions of dollars on policing other countries.

 

[Garb]

It's not a "linguistic game."

You are the one changing the meaning of the word to fit your agenda. An assassination is a political murder of someone with whom we are not at war.

Killing an enemy general is not an assassination. Killing a political leader with whom we are at war is not an assassination. For example, Hitler would have been a legitimate military target during WWII.

Spare me the argument that OBL didn't represent a country. That just moves his death farther away from being eligible for the term. The fact that he has an outlaw organization that declared war on the U.S. doesn't make it more difficult to kill him legitimately, quite the opposite.

There is no requirement that an enemy must be shooting at you at the moment you kill him. The fact that he IS an enemy makes him a legitimate target.

The fact that they don't wear uniforms and don't have a country shouldn't be a shield to protect them from the war they started.

Your logic has broken down. You've decided that the U.S. government is so corrupt and evil that everything they do is bad, and you just work backward from that conclusion.

dross, you have definitely made me think twice about my stance on this issue. There is one place that I keep hanging up on, and that is how is OBL any different than an American citizen who has committed such acts? Should the government have sent an assassination team after Timothy McVeigh? If you can tell me why we should recognize the rights of an American citizen, but not those of a foreigner, then I might be inclined to take your side on this matter.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

But even if the President openly violated this executive order, there'd still need to be the votes to impeach and convict him.
If not, he'd get by with it.

Except that a President can't be impeached for violating an Executive Order. Executive Orders do not carry the weight of law. They are instructions to officers and employees of the Executive Branch. They communicate Commander's Intent. Not really worth the paper they're written on.

dross, you have definitely made me think twice about my stance on this issue. There is one place that I keep hanging up on, and that is how is OBL any different than an American citizen who has committed such acts? Should the government have sent an assassination team after Timothy McVeigh? If you can tell me why we should recognize the rights of an American citizen, but not those of a foreigner, then I might be inclined to take your side on this matter.

Because the contract and covenants creating the Constitution were by and between the "People of the United States", not the people of the world. The Constitution was not intended to dictate how foreign policy was to be conducted - it was intended to establish the government which would determine what the foreign policy would be and how it was to be implemented.

McVeigh was a criminal mass murderer who was caught, tried and put to death. Osama Bin Laden was a foreign terrorist who declared war on America. It is a little [STRIKE]troubling[/STRIKE] frightening that people can't see a difference.

 

[rambone]

McVeigh was a criminal mass murderer who was caught, tried and put to death. Osama Bin Laden was a foreign terrorist who declared war on America. It is a little [STRIKE]troubling[/STRIKE] frightening that people can't see a difference.

Lets just hope the U.S. Government never forgets the difference.

 

[Garb]

McVeigh was a criminal mass murderer who was caught, tried and put to death. Osama Bin Laden was a foreign terrorist who declared war on America. It is a little [STRIKE]troubling[/STRIKE] frightening that people can't see a difference.

Aside from the fact that Mcveigh was a U.S. citizen, I see no difference. And even if it is as you say, and the Feds legitimately killed OBL, we could also be killing any random Afghan/Pakistani/Iraqi farmer who claimed to have been involved. That is not a logical progression, but the farmer would meet the requirements of not being a U.S. citizen, and being a "terror threat", whatever that means these days. I feel no remorse over the death of bin Laden, my sole issue is that this same legal precedent can be used to justify violent actions against much more controversial people, who may or may not actually be planning violence against the American people and/or the United States federal government.

 

[rambone]

I feel no remorse over the death of bin Laden, my sole issue is that this same legal precedent can be used to justify violent actions against much more controversial people, who may or may not actually be planning violence against the American people and/or the United States federal government.

Thankfully I trust my government and it would never wrongly finger an innocent American as a terrorist.

 

[Garb]

Thankfully I trust my government and it would never wrongly finger an innocent American as a terrorist.

http://www.kingsofconspiracy.com/images/180_weaver_randy_pic.gif

 

[badwolf.usmc]

And you think continuing them will? Open your eyes, The feds want control of every aspect of our lives here, why would the not want the same for foreign countries? This war has everything to do with control, and very little to do with terrorism. If it were about terrorism, we would actually be fighting a war instead of blowing billions of dollars on policing other countries.

And how should we fight this war?

 

[Sailor]

Yes he can, but waterboarding is strictly forbidden.

Also, SEAL team members that punch terrorists in the mouth will be prosecuted.

 

[Garb]

And how should we fight this war?

Which one? Afghanistan, Iraq or the one against terror? Afghanistan and Iraq should have been left alone all along, they really didn't have much to do with the war on terror. As for the war on terror, I'm curious as to how we can wage war on an idea. The whole idea was to instill fear in people so that they would go along with it, and not complain when the Feds started tapping their phones without warrants or feeling them up in airports. I don't have a military background, but I think OBL could have been found, captured and/or killed through intelligence gathering, surveillance, and a SEAL team like the one that actually got the job done. Aside from the moral quibble I have with shooting an unarmed human being in the head when he no longer poses a threat, this war could have, and should have been conducted much differently than it was. Policing other nations is always a bad idea imo.

 

[Expat]

Which one? Afghanistan, Iraq or the one against terror? Afghanistan and Iraq should have been left alone all along, they really didn't have much to do with the war on terror. .

I was under the impression that UBL was operating in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban government that ruled the country. When we demanded he be handed over, they refused. Is that incorrect?

 

[Garb]

I was under the impression that UBL was operating in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban government that ruled the country. When we demanded he be handed over, they refused. Is that incorrect?

Going to war with Afghanistan would've solved nothing. He just hopped the border into Pakistan didn't he?

 

[Expat]

Going to war with Afghanistan would've solved nothing. He just hopped the border into Pakistan didn't he?

No way to know until we tried. We supposedly almost got him.