The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Does the President have the right to assassinate American citizens

  1. #1
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default Does the President have the right to assassinate American citizens

    Hmmmmmmm this was an interesting article. Can't wait to here what some on the board here have to say about this

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
    Last edited by cotts135; 01-27-2010 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    what article??

    without reading the article, the simple answer is yes.

    I can't wait to se what "you" have to say about this.
    Last edited by subroc; 01-27-2010 at 03:11 PM.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Hmmmmmmm this was an interesting article. Can't wait to here what some on the board here have to say about this

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
    It's sad that this is occurring, but evidently OK because Bush started it!!



    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    what article??

    without reading the article, the simple answer is yes.

    I can't wait to se what "you" have to say about this.
    Just wonder how you would feel if say the government said that one of your family members were a terrorist and targeted them?

    I guess you don't believe in the Constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens either.

  5. #5
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Executive Order 12333, signed by Reagan in 1981, prohibits US agencies and agents from being involved in assassinations. "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." This followed similar Executive Order bans by Ford in 1976 and Carter in 1978. Repealing the 1981 ban would require publication of a revised order in the Federal Register. However, such publication can be avoided in the intersst of national security under changes implemented by GWB, and it is possible hat this has happened. Further, many have argued that killings of terrorists do not represent assassinations (i.e. targeted killings of individuals for political purposes) since they are directed at defense of the nation. It seems to me that such explanations fail the test of simple linguistics. A stronger argument would be based on the bill passed by Congress on 9/18/2001 to authorize the "war on terror". It states, in part:

    "(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

    Of course, nothing about a Presidential authorization for assassination would have any effect whatsoever on the legality or illegality of the action taken under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the assassination occurred. Thus, if I murder someone in Yemen, I may not be prosecuted in the United States since I have not committed a crime in the US. If I am arrested for murder in Yemen and argue that my activities were authorized by the President, it would be no more valid as a defense than if I said that my dog told me to do it.

    There has actually been some friction between the US and Italy after Italy convicted two dozen US agents of kidnapping for their involvement in a "rendition" within Italian borders in 2003. Each agent was sentenced to five years imprisonment. While Italy has not sought extradition, it would be unwise for any of the convicted criminals (an appropriate terms for people convicted of a crime) to travel to Italy unless they are planning a very long trip.

    EDIT: There is a good discussion of the assassination ban at http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf. It was written in 2002, but there have been no subsequent, published amendments to assassination ban elements of 12333 since then.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 01-27-2010 at 03:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Just wonder how you would feel if say the government said that one of your family members were a terrorist and targeted them?
    Well, if they were, I hope they are targeted. Is the "American al qaeda" Adam Gadahn a terrorist worthy of being targeted by our military?

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    ...I guess you don't believe in the Constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens either.
    No, I just believe the president is tasked with defending the United States, even democrat president and occasionally extreme measures are needed to accomplish that.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  7. #7
    Senior Member DSemple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    528

    Default

    I have no problem with Obama targeting terrorist for extermination.

    I do think that there is some irony in that on the one hand Obama is perfectly willing to target and kill terrorist along with some innocent bystanders abroad outright, but on the other hand if we capture them he wants to drag them back here and afford them all the rights of our legal system, including a paid for public defender and trial.

    I guess I'm not smart enough to be a Democrat, that is confusing as all hell.
    Just for the record I have very fine dogs. Some of the best in the whole country....or at least on my own block anyhow.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    And the most glaring question for those who critized Bush/Cheney detention policies but want to defend this: how could anyone possibly object to imprisoning foreign nationals without charges or due process at Guantanamo while approving of the assassination of U.S. citizens without any charges or due process?
    When I got to this at the end of the article, I was already asking myself about the inconsistency of this ... outrage at Gitmo and bringing a detainee to Manhattan for trial ... but still condoning assassination without ANY due process?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Questions are usually never as simple as they are posed.
    Okay, let's agree the president has the right to order the assassination of a terrorist. Then what becomes the definition of a terrorist, and who gets to decide. Can the president designate surrogates to make that call? So Rahem Emanuel can make a list? Or Karl Rove?

    I learned not to ask questions that I don't want to know the answers to.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #10
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ...Then what becomes the definition of a terrorist, and who gets to decide...
    I guess it is a lot like what is the definition of torture.


    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ...Can the president designate surrogates to make that call? So Rahem Emanuel can make a list? Or Karl Rove?...
    It doesn't really matter who atually makes the list as long as the president does his due dilligence in making the call.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •