If the President Can Order the Assassination of U.S. Citizens, then What Can't He Do?

OK, well it's no use talking to you because you didn't even read the original article I linked. The memo is from Obama's justice department.

Maybe it's not clear to you, but Obama has been President for almost three years.

You are tiresome.

 

Obama has refused to disclose the DOJ memo that says its ok for him to kill U.S. citizens without due process of law.

Did you read that part of the OP?

 

What part of Bush pre-empted any Obama memo with his own pen don't you guys get?
Whatever you want to pin on Obama will be sticking to Bush. I know you'll kick a fit even when it's proven to you, but too bad!

 

You've opened the door for the Huckabee debate.
In my opinion, a person who abuses the power of authority should be held responsible for the events of the abuse. Yes, in my opinion, Mike Huckabee is a murderer- and so is Obama, and a US citizen to top it off. Huckabee decided not to run in 2012 BECAUSE of this failure. Obama should decide not to run in 2012 because of the assassination.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5835831-503544.html

 

Wow, it's really pointless to have this discussion. You are a Kool-Aid drinker and you are worse because you can taste the cyanide and you drink it anyway and you are urging other people to drink it.

 

Yeah, I remember trying to tell conservatives back in the day, "You guys are gonna be sorry when a democrat gets in the white house." And conservatives were all, "Ha! There will never be another democrat in the white house! Bush will be the first in an unending dynasty of republican presidents! We will eat your children!" And so on.

 

It's not a discussion when your premise is to deny what's been rubbing it in your face all along.

 

OK, so you join the Kool-Aid drinkers as well. So long as Obama is abusing his power and crushing our freedom, you have no problem with it. Duly noted. You are a Democrat first before you are an American.

 

And they're still blind to it all, mindboggling stupidity!

 

"Yeah, I remember trying to tell conservatives back in the day, "You guys are gonna be sorry when a democrat gets in the white house." And conservatives were all, "Ha! There will never be another democrat in the white house! Bush will be the first in an unending dynasty of republican presidents! We will eat your children!" And so on." Daybreaker

I lived in Louisiana in 2003-4 and I remember having the same discussion. Vote for John Kerry. Maybe he will stop the war machine. Maybe he will write a balanced budget. Of course, no. George Bush again. In 2008, a turtle could have been elected on the Democrat ticket. The USA would have been better off with a turtle, however, here we are.

 

Bush never ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen.

Obama has crossed a line that should never have been crossed.

 

If you don't value your rights, you deserve to lose them. One major problem that I have with all of this is the people that tell me that he is a terrorist and wants to kill Americans are the same people that killed him. Maybe he just liked Muslims? I am not willing to forego my rights just because some people with ulterior motives tell me that I am safer because they violated someone else's rights. I don't care what their names or party affiliations may be. If they are threatening my civil rights, then they are the enemy.(looking all around for a drone)!

 

Thank you. I'm glad someone gets it. Unfortunately, you and I are outnumbered.

 

I missed the point where the United States congress declared war on anyone. The comparison with WW2 Germany is inappropriate. Awlaki was not in a battlefield, not wearing a uniform and, as far as anyone knows, was not armed. According to reports he was home sleeping when they dropped a bomb on him.

To continue the illusion of a comparison if an American citizen in a German uniform was killed while unarmed it would be a war crime.

Could you please cite the proof he was a terrorist?

And there is the point, the 5th Amendment...."be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

But then if you consider lobbing a bomb at an accused person to be due process, I know a place for you.....Pyongyang.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. As Benjamin Franklin said "a man who would sacrifice freedom in the name of security deserves neither."

If they can accuse you of being a terrorist and then kill you without proof tested through cross examination then none of us is safe.

 

So in order to live up to some bull (*)(*)(*)(*) idea of "values" we were supposed to just let the dude sit out there for the rest of his life in the desert planning attacks because we sure as hell could never capture him.

It was either kill him, or let him continue his actions. and take no action against him in reprisal. That is an unacceptable solution!

What do you do in such choices in war? Take the high road, and risk American lives, or take the low road and save people but sacrifice a bit of your ideals?

It's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty choice but it's an obvious one to me.

 

Right or wrong, not too many had a problem with Obama being taken out in much the same way.
Obama has been kicking the living crap out of the terrorists, both over there and over here, and his detractors are howling like mortally wounded rabid wolves.

 

Sorry, but capturing terrorist is not some far fetched scenario. Maybe you should talk to some of the 9/11 masterminds that are rotting away in gitmo.

 

John Walker Lindh was captured in Afghanistan, returned to the United States, and given a trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

 

he has nearly the identical same power as the king of england!

 

Right, because anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul's views is automatically an establishment neo-con.

You guys parrot your leader's views almost as much as liberals do. Talk about not being able to think...

 

We were declared war on by Al Qaeda, the organization which Awlaki was a part of. Going after Al Qaeda is part of our war strategy. You must have been aware of this during the past decade.

You mean the fact that he was behind some of the most recent terror attacks that took place on our soil, including the Fort Hood terror attack? How he was a recruiter for Al Qaeda, the organization that declared war on us, and responsible for 9/11? What about all the sermons and videos of him telling his followers to kill Americans and wage jihad? Or are you one of the conspiracy theorists who believe this was all set up to justify our involvement in the area?

Rights he gave up by becoming an enemy combatant.

I'm sure in your world it would have been better to allow him to plot more ways to kill Americans on US soil.

 

Now, remember folks. Bombing civilians in other countries without due process and detaining terror suspects in Gitmo without due process are perfectly acceptable as long as they aren't American citizens.

If any American citizens are involved and especially if a liberal is behind the order, then any neglect of due process is just totally unacceptable.

 

The real question should be:

Why can't the President authorise the killing of a known terrorist, one who has the unambigious aim of conducting terrorist activities that may harm America citizens. Only the extreme orthodox PC crowd, or those wth a strident anti- American and/or Anti-Western bias, would disagree. To think otherwise is to be complicit in the death of our free society.

 

No, there is also a camp of radical libertarian fundamentalists who are so ideologically rigid and unbendable that any and all actions by the Government they deem "unconstitutional" suddenly are.

They don't beleive or trust in the Supreme Court, they don't beleive or trust in the Executive and they don't beleive in or trust Congress.. I'm not sure who they trust but certainly not anyone or anything with any ability to change anything for the better or willing to make tough decisions involving life and death.

It seems to me many want is to wave the white flag of defeat in foreign policy, retreat inside the borders of "Fortress America" and then fight a civil war to secede the SE US from the rest of the Union, and if the Latin American nationalists want to secede they can to. They don't beleive in America as one nation. They want to break it up into as many pieces as possible to "preserve freedom and the Constitution" never mind that the Constitution cannot survive without a nation to administer it and that nation cannot survive without a globalized military presence and still maintain our quality of life.

I'm starting to think that Libertarianism is really just anarchism with a Right Wing bent.