Barack Obama ordered the assassination of two American citizens. No one is arguing that they weren’t bad, but this is a terrible precedent.
An American President now can order the assassination of American citizens.
An American President can now suspend any American’s constitutional rights at will.
Think about that.
Why did we give Timothy McVeigh a trial?
Why don’t we just kill Case Anthony? We all know she’s guilty.
Why do we even bother having trials?
Over at Huffington Post there is division on this issue. They quote Jane Harman:
“It’s tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law,”
The Justice Department vetted this? Holder vetted this?
That borders on insanity. This is the same Holder “Justice Department” who put an end to the Black Panther intimidation case. The is the same Holder “Justice Department” which intentionally sent weapons into Mexico. This is the same Justice Department that sues states for attempting to protect their borders. This is the same “Justice Department” that wants a civil trial for Khalid Sheik Muhammamed.
HuffPo is allowing no comments that question Obama’s decision to assassinate an American citizen. I suspect that even they know how wrong this was.
What is the threshold for ordering the death of American citizens?
Joe Biden likened Tea Party members to terrorists.
Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”
Golly, if they’re terrorists, then Obama can have them killed, right?
Obama himself called Americans his enemies
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’
And why not punish them with a nice Predator missile?
In fact, we are “treacherous enemies.”
Obama’s website once trumpeted this:
“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”
Terrorists. Terrorists need to be killed, even if they are Americans.
How about killing anyone who is a threat to democracy? Barack Obama once said that the Chamber of Commerce was a threat to democracy. Why not kill them?
David Plouffe said those who support Republicans are a threat to democracy
“They are becoming the central financial actors in the 2010 election,” Plouffe told reporters in Washington yesterday. “What’s happening out there is really a hijacking of our democracy.”
I guess they can be killed as well. Eric Holder would no doubt permit it.
A whole new world of opportunity has been opened up for Obama.
What now is the threshold for an American President to order the assassination of American citizens? Who can Obama have killed simply because he’s in a pissy mood?
Who’s next?
Aren’t we bombing Libya because its leader was killing his people?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Rhymes With Right:
Nope. I sort of like Rand Paul, though.
@SpideyTerry:
You betcha.
@gregory_dittman: And your point? Really I am interested!
@Rhymes With Right:
I do not borrow their arguments. I wrote the Soros post as kind of a warning against this. I am concerned for the system.
Not long ago left wing idiots were screaming about Bush and eavesdropping and rights of citizens being infringed. That pales in contrast to this.
If we need not try citizens to determine their guilt, what does that say of our system of law?
@drjohn:
Wrong — it says what must be shown to obtain a conviction if one is apprehended during or after one commits treason. But given that “levying war” is likely to involve a military response by the United States (as ordered by the Commander-in-Chief), it is implicit that some traitors may lose their life before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
Or is it your position that the United States may not defend itself from acts of treason before the traitor has been indicted, tried, and convicted?
@drjohn:
Not a damn thing — because a military response to those who are “levying war against the United States” will almost inevitably result in the death of some or all of the traitors.
Your problem is that you would prefer that we engage in large, bloody military action against the traitors with the resultant loss of the lives of American military personnel (you know, like in the Civil War) rather than avail ourselves of the latest technology so as to take out the enemy from a distance without putting our troops in immediate danger.
@Rhymes With Right:
Opinion again.
May I similarly shoot someone I “feel” is likely to attack me?
Does the US routinely “kill” those American citizens involved in plots against the nation?
@drjohn:
What asinine arguments!
1) We did not attack Yemen. We engaged in a military operation against an enemy using Yemeni territory as a base, with the full cooperation of the Yemeni government.
2) McVeigh was inside the United States, which makes a bit of difference regarding the principles involved.
@Rhymes With Right:
Do we have permission from Yemen to bomb Yemen?
If not, under what aegis do we operate?
If we do have permission, then why not (with permission) send in a team to capture Awlaki? And if he resists, well, that’s too bad.
@Rhymes With Right:
What principles are different? The Constitution is supposed to follow you around the world.
@drjohn:
Are you really so irrational as to argue that it is not implicit that the US may use military force against those “levying war against the United States”, including the use of deadly force, before obtaining a criminal conviction for treason? What is your position on the late unpleasantness between the United States of America and the so-called Confederate States of America?
Dr. John,
Thank you for the discussion. I agree with you that personal blood-lust wants to celebrate the loss of these two *)^&$@# idiots. However, we must find a moral course lest we be worse than the vermin we chase. Put me on a hill or dune with a 90x spotter scope to positively ID our ‘target’ and my Barrett .50 cal will do the talking, even in Yemen. Order me to have my drone operators unleash hellfire, then I need better intell than 15,000 ft gives me in my trailer outside Las Vegas.
Keep up the reasonable commentary; our Soldiers and Marines must have reasonable people on the home front to ensure they are allowed to be the professional soldiers they signed on to be.
@drjohn:
Actually, it does not — as you ought to know.
@Smorgasbord: I guess then if was seen walking down a street in Anytown U.S.A. we could just send up a drone to drop on him?
There is inevitably a viscerally negative reaction to any assassination ‘claimed’ by Obama and applauded by the MSM in effort to boost his sagging ratings. After all, Obama is the champion socialist who: Denigrated Bush’s “war on terror”; sanctimoniously committed to close Gitmo; campaigned on a commitment to immediately pull out of Iraq; and waffled on everything from negotiations with Russia, to confronting Iran.
It is a clear demonstration of their stupidity that Obama and his mob of liberal loons are cheering assassinations, but shout self-righteously against torture. Splattering a body into a million pieces is OK, but torture? Not so much.
But still, he’s a wimp, and not a terribly sharp one at that. It’s just that he’s a political wimp, first and foremost, which means goal #1 is getting elected at all cost, . . . morals, principals, lives, Constitutions, consistency of thought, consistency of policy, etc., be damned – and let’s get assassinations under my belt. Get the order out, NOW.
International laws against assassinations? Depends on who is committing them. Assassinations are always OK when we can get away with them, and when someone can rationalize them to us, . . . and of course on this one, what the hell is Yemen going to do anyway? There’s nothing they can do. This was human scum which deserved to be vaporized, but I agree with some of the sentiment here, concerned with abuse of power.
Hopefully, the Constitution doesn’t get vaporized as well.
@Rhymes With Right:
So our Marine72 here no longer enjoys the protection of the US Constitution when he serves overseas?
Thanks for clarifying.
@Marine72:
Thank you
A friend of mine from elsewhere made an interesting observation:
So again, Awlaki was in this country, with suspected links to terrorism. While he was here, Democrats on this board were against us wiretapping his calls to terrorists overseas without a warrant. A few years later, he moves to Yemen. Those same democrats on this board now approve of his killing without a trial.
@Mike: #64
The USA is not a sanctuary for terrorists. They don’t come here to hide.
@DrJohn: #6
My dislike for Obama has nothing to do with it. It’s just like someone hiding a known crook in the USA. They become a crook to and are charged with the offense.
@DrJohn: #8
You seem to think that American law followed a US citizen around the world. Many Americans are in foreign jails for political reasons and our laws don’t apply in those countries.
the stupidity of this thread is mind boggling.
how many american lives would it have been worth chewing up and spitting out in the meat grinder of combat in a foreign lawless country to try and “apprehend” awlaki?????
it wasnt a law enforcement situation it was war.
so im gonna ask this only once side step this and im gonna call you a moron just like rhymes did.
put a number on his capture.
go ahead, how many american men and from what “law enforcement” group should have gone and died and in how many numbers to satisfy your desire to see him arrested?
really!! who and how?
how would they go and try to “arrest” a man who is in a combat setting surrounded by combat fighters,
oooh I can see that going swimmingly.
so tell us all how many american lives should have been spent to bring him back to the U.s. and give him a trial.
would you have gone? would you have sent me?
WHO? WHO THE FUCK SHOULD GO AND TRY TO ARREST AWLAKI AND FIGHT TO THE DEATH IN A FUCKING THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE JUST BECUASE AWLAKI WAS “AN AMERICAN”?????!!!!!
I dont think ive ever found myself in agreement with wordsmith, so that outa tell the readers something. but this a stupid thread. and im thinking its not up to flopping aces standards.
this isnt a case of “saving private ryan”!!!
the fuckhead was a traitor fighting against us and had brought war directly to us. not only did he get what he deserved but if obama had sent americans to get him and risk their lives and maybe get killed,
I would have called for his impeachment, under the charge of being a bigger village idiot than I think he is right now. (not that Im not calling for that on other issues)
I would also like to add this final note:
ron paul is a senile old fool who should be considered an honorary hippy, thus making it allowable to hippy punch him in the face.
So according to Dr. John the Constitution IS a suicide pact. Although in this case it doesn’t apply.
You see, my understanding is that once you undertake military action against the U.S., you forfeit your rights. Not to mention both him and khan openly admitted to being traitors and to waging war against the U.S.- these are facts, not conjecture.
BTW, anyone bought a gun lately? Mark yes on the form that asks if you have renounced your citizenship and see if they still sell you the gun.
Here is a good article on why the killing WAS lawful.
I also strongly urge everyone to read what is at the below link: It basically puts the whole arguement to reast.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
I have been fixing irrigation pipe and laying in the mud. I don’t think there is anyone on here today who wouldn’t have shot this bastard like a mad dog. However, there are those who would like the situation explained. This administration is noted for going things “His Way” and he has hinted at how he would like to bypass the old system and just start doing the things he wants to do without interference. He has earned his distrust “honestly”.
Apparently he has killed over a thousand (something I heard on Fox today)with the drones and we are supposed to assume they were all legitimate kills and they probably were, but do we know if he is making political or expediency kills as well, who has the oversight? Remember this guy likes to push the envelope concerning executive power. I am not saying we as civilians need to vote on every kill, but this guy needs a leash.
Oh, I am not a Ron Paulista. I like Cain and if we needed a politician we have hundreds of those Numb Nuts in Washington right now. I think we need a man who can think with logic, a mathematician who is also a business man.
@Skookum:
I volunteer you and Dr. John to go to Yemen and serve terrorists with warrants. After you Mirandize these animals you have my blessing to bring them here for their days, weeks, months and years in court.
What is it that you cannot understand about illegal combatant status? As for the notion that “… we go out of our way to allow non-uniformed soldiers the option to throw down their weapons and walk away, but condemn their leaders to a silent death from above, without the option of walking away.”, I can only tell you that there is plenty of footage of illegal combatants having launched that last RPG or discarded their firearm while making an exit only to be reminded by AH-64 or Predator operators that they are in fact still on a battlefield. Furthermore, you have no idea just how many people are deterred by the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism strategies but I can promise you that more would join if we gave the appearance that we were not willing to fight to win.
And here’s the hard cold fact, Dr John. Whether these people are in Yemen or in any other country, they are are war with us and giving them a notional safe haven puts our troops at a huge disadvantage. So unless you want to be one of those soldiers, Marines, or other service members that we send to fight, or you want to explain to them why you think we cannot kill the people that target them, I suggest you put this argument in proper perspective and put aside the rancor of domestic politics and the stupid commentary of people like Joe Biden.
What Skookum and Dr. John are doing today is sadly familiar. They are taking the same route that George W. Bush’s petty political opponents took during his administration by using the war to attack the sitting President to further their domestic political desires. I cannot wait for Obama to leave the White House – I cannot stand the man, his political allies, or his policies, save one – killing terrorists.
@Smorgasbord:
That’s not what I said. One does not lose his rights under the Constitution once he leaves the US.
@rumcrook:
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
Well, how about that?
@drjohn:
No, he loses his rights for waging war against the U.S. which I pointed out. He forfeited his rights by doing so. Period. 100% justified kill. How about you address that?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
@Hard Right:
This is great news. We can spare ourselves the need for a trial for Faisal Shahzad and future Timothy McVeigh’s.
And it means any of us can find and kill Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Especially as Ayers says he’s guilty as hell, and free as a bird.
And with this precedent we can kill anyone who mouths off at the government. Or makes any hollow threat.
Nice.
AND if the EPA feels its ozone rules will save thousands of lives and one opposes that, well, that’s like war too, isn’t it?
Same for Obamacare. All they need to do is label you a terrorist. Which they have.
Nuke ’em, Danno.
Once you start…..
Now this is starting to sound like some left-wing rag.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): I was wondering the same thing WTF.
Comparing the Tea Party to al Queda, and the EPA going to war? Really What the Hell.
@Stix:
You keep thinking one case. You have to think “principle.” Once you erase the lines you can’t paint them back.
Who decides with whom we are at war?
@drjohn: Really so you think the EPA can actually go to war with the Citizens on the United States. Or that The Tea Party is in any way close to what a terrorist in another country plotting to kill US citizens and US military is the same thing. This is utterly ridiculous.
I am glad that Obama has not given up on the War on Terror, as he was saying when he was campaigning, even a broken clock is right 2 time out of the day
I totally agree with @tfhr: Some peple are starting to use the war against Obama the same way the Progressives and Liberals did against Bush. We are better than that.
@Stix:
Where’s the rule? Who decides?
@drjohn:
Those are pathetic strawmen.
Tell me, did Ayers or McVeigh wage war on America from another country? I would also argue that their actions were not considered waging war, but could have and perhaps should have been. Could their rights have been stripped? Absolutely. Were they? Obviously not. Was that an option? YES!
Also, you say the average joe can go hunt them down and kill them. Wrong again. The average person is not a government agent. We do not have the authority to act on behalf of the U.S. However, if the person in question is engaging in military actions against the U.S., our military IS fully justified in killing them. They DO NOT have to try to capture him. The strike was a military operation.
“Mouthing off” or “making threats ” is somehow the same as recruiting for a terrorist group, calling for and assisting in attempts to violently overthrow of the U.S. govt/wage war against America, and helping to establish a terrorist organization in Yemen? Really?
@Hard Right: Again.
Where’s the rule for any of that?
Who decides who is at war?
@Hard Right:
Totally agree, but this was not the case.
Myself, I have no problem with killing al Wacky- while he might have technicallly been a citizen, he was a traitor, and traitors who consort with the enemy get whatever we can give them.
@Marine72:
We must have talked about this situation before for you to identify me as one connected to the operation of UAVs. It just goes to show that this set of circumstances has been in existence for quite some time and it is about time that we get used to having the ability to eliminate our enemies in a manner that makes some people squeamish.
When I was in al Anbar, I watched many people die from the vantage point of a Predator feed or that of a number of other air breathing platforms. My particular role was strictly ISR and I was never part of the release of ordinance from any of the platforms that had that particular capability but nevertheless my “eyes” on particular operations contributed to the death of many illegal combatants at the hands of both Americans and Iraq police and special forces working with our side.
This is a global war and our opponents deliberately violate the rules of war by operating across borders and without uniforms while hiding among among civilians. When we can catch them off guard and are allowed the opportunity to kill them while avoiding high risk to civilians or our own military personnel, I believe that we would be negligent if we failed to act. We run surveillance on HVTs in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other locations. Are we wrong to pass along that intelligence to those nations ( I use that term loosely) so that their governments may take action against terrorists within their borders? If we’ve provided the targeting information on a US citizen then that opens up a huge question on laws regarding collection on American citizens and the use of that intelligence. (see http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html ) I mention this now because some suggest that much of the “right or wrong” in this case depends on whether or not Yemen was cooperating.
The Atlantic has this write-up today.
It touches on what Wordsmith wrote re NYTimes article classified memo. The author of The Atlantic piece wonders “What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law?”
RIP RIP RIP United States Constitution
I have linked to that several times. Am I right in concluding you haven’t read it?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
@drjohn:
What?! He most certainly was engaging in military action. You are trying to define military action so narrowly as to justify your view. Sorry, but military action includes things other than just shooting at our troops. Yes, their are certainly limits to the definition, but his actions met the requirement.
@Hard Right:
Which military would that be?
@drjohn:
So you think someone must be part of a military to engage in military action? Really?
Again, have you read the link I posted? There is your law. The more you post, the more it seems you are being deliberately blind or dishonest.
@Blake:
Understood.
I have no problem with him being dead. And if you want to codify specifically those actions which can forfeit an American his rights under the Constitution that’s fine with me.
I just absolutely and strongly believe that no American ought to be denied his due process under the law- especially given that that damned Holder wants to grant scum like KSM all sorts of American rights and privileges.
And I really do not enjoy this conflict with you, but I am deeply committed to principle.
@Hard Right:
When it comes to the denial of due process, I think you are obligated to be really, really specific.
@just me 95:
Bingo.
First, I do not think all of us are understanding what Dr John ans Skook are saying. They are both historians. Other despots have used similar situations to justify even more deviations from governing documents. There is no effort here to compare Tea Party members to a terrorist.
Does anyone remember when the FBI shot an innocent woman as collateral damage? They found a way to justify the action even though they had many opportunities to apprehend the suspect prior to a gun battle. We have many laws on the books that I doubt not one person fully understands and of which there has been no judicial review. My concern is that with the liberal ways this administration intreprets a wide variety of regulations, we may want to reduce the wiggle room to prevent obvious abuses. This is what I think Skook and Dr John are trying to get across.
@Randy: I am also a historian.
Earlier in this thread people were saying if they can do this to the Terrorists, they can do it to the Tea Party, since the people in the GOV called the Tea Party terrorists, a huge straw man if I have ever saw one. And that the EPA can wage war against us because they can call it a war against US citizens. I fell like I am InfoWars with this kind of BS.