Do you think the president should have the legal authority to assassinate Americans?

[Kuya]

Leaving aside non-Americans, i wanted to make a poll to see how the people in this forum feel about Obama's assassination program which was recently talked about in the media, where the intent was to kill an American named Anwar al-Awlaki who is allegedly in Yemen. Supposedly there are other Americans on the assassination lists as hinted by John Brennan.

Consider that assassinations means there is process to determine whether the people targeted are guilty of the crimes the government acuses them of and also consider that it's not killing Americans in warzones but outside, presumably with the logic that they need to be killed as soon as possible or they might put national security in peril. This also relies on the idea that the people in government can be trusted to execute the right people for the right reasons without accountability. But then again, if they really are a threat, they might need to be killed even if they aren't currently engaged in hostilities but plotting instead.

Quotes from old news related to the topic:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

Quote on other possible American targets:

Dozens of Americans have joined terrorist groups and are posing a threat to the United States and its interests abroad, the president's most senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security said Thursday. . . . "There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us," said John O. Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism. . . .

"If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response," Mr. Brennan said. "If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms."

Links:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/wo...7yemen.html?hp

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...orists/?page=1

So, again, do you agree that the president should have the legal authority to assassinate Americans? You can condition it if you want in a post.

[Mizango]

[wagon]

If cops on the street have that authority under certain circumstances then I would think the commander in chief would at least have that authority. We are talking about a very limited set of circumstances though, its more likely that the administration would either lockup an enemy combatant indefinitely or try him or her in court.

[Kuya]

If cops on the street have that authority under certain circumstances then I would think the commander in chief would at least have that authority.

Well, it's not whether he has it or not (it seems he does), the thread revolves around whether you feel comfortable with it (the authority/ability to assassinate americans at will).

[Saga]

Which answer will you criticize me the least for giving?

[Seanr]

i don't feel comfortable with that at all actually. but they've probably been doing this for years... nigga is just being more open and honest about the shit, honestly.

[wagon]

Well, it's not whether he has it or not (it seems he does), the thread revolves around whether you feel comfortable with it (the authority/ability to assassinate americans at will).

Sure, both obama and bush said on televised addresses many times that if we find osama we will kill him. Now imagine that there's another terrorist on the loose who committed atrocious crimes equivalent to 9/11 and that he is a naturalized American citizen. I don't see why there will be a difference in treatment. Obviously the most appropriate response would be to try him in court but if he's been eluding authority like osama and is back by a foreign militant group that is capable of attacking the USA again at any given moment, I will bet that he will be killed fairly quickly once he's found. As much as it sounds like an episode of 24, it could happen and I think the president should have the authority to assassinate terrorists be it foreign or otherwise. Of course there should be without a shadow of a doubt that he is responsible for such crimes -- like taking responsibility of an attack by releasing a tape. At the end of the day, giving the president the authority to assassinate enemy combatant is like the right to abortion. While there should be a freedom of choice, both are not a decision taken lightly.

[Zalius]

i think that the idea could potentially produce good video games in the future

[OWS_Tonx]

To put my opinion very vaguely, some people just need to be killed. Of course there would need to be a reason that's logical. Obama: "This guy is a McCain supporter? Add him to the list."

[Zalius]

dude, the human colony has the power to kill anyone they want. if everyone on the entire planet wants you to die, you are going to die. if half of the people want you to die, you are probably going to die unless youre a fuckin g

[antihero]

I'm not a terrorist so fuck year

[Blarg]

China has this authority, a kill switch of sorts, so I think it's only right that america has it too so we aren't shown up.

[BerenTebogo]

I don't trust any authority, whether I support them or not, to have the authority to execute summary judgment without a trial by peers. Our best "evidence" has failed us so horrendously in as recent as this very decade regarding the war we're engaged in.

And consider that scenario had far more manpower and research involved and still failed to produce the right answer.

If the basis for the execution order consisted of, as a pre-requisite, a trial in absentia with proceedings that could be viewed or reviewed by the public without waiting 10 or so years for the material to be "de-classified" then I suppose I couldn't really oppose it.

Of course the offender who is being tried in absentia would have to be provided with an attorney capable of properly representing their rights and mounting an adequate defense. This should not be an exercise in railroading. The taking of a life should be held to the highest scrutiny available as the situation allows.

A probable future threat to national safety as a whole should not be deprived due process whereas an imminent situation (aka intelligence suggests that an attack is set to happen in one hour a la Jack Bauer) may need to be held to less stringent standards, obviously.

However, less stringent standards is not necessarily a blanket statement for "Ok shoot!" Evidentiary hearings before a judge in chambers, recorded on closed circuit systems, can be supplemented for a trial in matters of dire importance. It's not something that takes a long time and it can be done in the amount of time it would take to fortify a strategic position and take precautions against the injury of civilians. No excuse not to, should be enough people involved in this process every step of the way that many routes can be pursued at the same time.

[Kuya]

Sure, both obama and bush said on televised addresses many times that if we find osama we will kill him. Now imagine that there's another terrorist on the loose who committed atrocious crimes equivalent to 9/11 and that he is a naturalized American citizen. I don't see why there will be a difference in treatment. Obviously the most appropriate response would be to try him in court but if he's been eluding authority like osama and is back by a foreign militant group that is capable of attacking the USA again at any given moment, I will bet that he will be killed fairly quickly once he's found. As much as it sounds like an episode of 24, it could happen and I think the president should have the authority to assassinate terrorists be it foreign or otherwise. Of course there should be without a shadow of a doubt that he is responsible for such crimes -- like taking responsibility of an attack by releasing a tape. At the end of the day, giving the president the authority to assassinate enemy combatant is like the right to abortion. While there should be a freedom of choice, both are not a decision taken lightly.

I think that if Osama were found, he should be put into custody and put on trial rather than extrajudicially executed, but i imagine that most people might disagree with me and the reason that would most likely be cited is that: "He deserves it". In other words, an emotional, vengence motivated response. I think that it's better to put him in court rather than assassinated in order to keep the legal system consistent, meaning, people are first judged and then punished, and not the other way around.

Your argument, if i'm reading it right, is that at times there might be circumstances where assassinating someone might be necessary, á la 24, as you say. A ticking time bomb scenario, i suppose. In this case you might be right. Using assassinations only in the most extreme circumstances is a satisfactory solution. The problem is, how do you assure that it is properly used if evidence of the person's wrong doing and the circumstances of the assassination are likely to be kept hidden, probably because of national security.

How do you make sure assassinations, which are inherently secretive, are only used under the strictest conditions? In reality, it seems to me, there is no way to assure this, and you have to have faith that the people who have this power use it wisely because there likely is no accountability. You will be told this person is guilty of some crimes, and that killing them is necessary rather than bringing them to court, and you must take it on faith that it is all true and correct.

[Demosthenes11]

maybe I'm misreading but is kuya saying americans should not be comfortable with the president giving an order to assassinate a known terrorist solely because he is an american citizen?

[kuronosan]

I'm sorry, when was it not okay to assassinate enemies of the state given that they are proven to be enemies?

I think the better question for this poll would be is the government intelligent enough to act on proper intelligence when assassinating citizens whom are enemies? That is the frightening part. What if they act on faulty intelligence, like Bush did?

Oops. Just killed someone who wasn't an enemy. Who holds them liable?

Who indeed...

[Rhinox]

Pretty much going as expected.


You got all these America fuck yeah fudge packers who have been essentially been conditioned to the defaulted "My country right or wrong" mentality.

These are the same guys that think we fought in WWII to save the jews and we spread democracy around the world.

In reality History will judge us pretty harshly.

[BerenTebogo]

maybe I'm misreading but is kuya saying americans should not be comfortable with the president giving an order to assassinate a known terrorist solely because he is an american citizen?

The problem is that is he a "known" terrorist in the way that we have evidence, revealed to the public, of his terrorist actions and affiliations or is he a "known" terrorist in the way that we "knew" there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Rhinox]

What even more amazing is the self-described Obama liberals essentially doing a 180 from crying when Bush forced through the Patriot Act.


Like you could trust Obama more then you could Bush.

[jmc]

I always though the government did this anyways. Via intelligence agencies, Spec Op units etc...

heh