US Prez has the right to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism

BluePlanet

Yeah whatevar.

I posted this over on US Politics but nobody would touch it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64409488#post64409488

Has USA totally lost it?
I think so, oh yes i do.

cantankerous

Finally. It's about time someone stepped up to the mark and did something about this terrorism problem that grips the world.

I only hope the Irish government will take simmilar action before it's too late.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Do you know if thats a very reliable source??

It can hardly be constitutional...

SV

'suspected' ?
really now?

land of the free my arsé./

Hail 2 Da Chimp

BluePlanet wrote: »

US Prez has the right to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism

... with his bare hands! Sounds like a great movie plot!

mikom

BluePlanet wrote: »

US Prez has the right to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism

Well he has got a fabulous showbiz blog, but i thinks it's going too far giving Mr Hilton the right to kill.

Pompey Magnus

If any dumb cop is allowed kill bank robbers I don't see the problem with a considered decision by the very highest level of American government to stop a potential terrorist from killing innocent civilians given no alternative action is available to him.

Biggins

Hail 2 Da Chimp wrote: »

... with his bare hands! Sounds like a great movie plot!

Wot! Has Schwarzenegger been elected to office (and the constitution to allow it changed)?
We're doomed I tell ya!

BluePlanet

Isabelle Plump Grinder wrote: »

Do you know if thats a very reliable source??

It can hardly be constitutional...

Dunno, the original article is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fisher/the-silence-of-the-sheep_b_452567.html
Written by William Fisher

He says: "Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism."

MagicMarker

US Citizens?

They do know most terrorists terrorizing America are not American yeah?

Silly

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Charco wrote: »

If any dumb cop is allowed kill bank robbers I don't see the problem with a considered decision by the very highest level of American government to stop a potential terrorist from killing innocent civilians given no alternative action is available to him.

'Dumb' cops can't just fire indiscriminately or they would be in a world of ****, every shot must be logged

They certainly aren't allowed to shoot to kill suspects unless they are behaving in a threatening manner as no one should be allowed to

Remember the poor young Brazilian electrician shot 4 times in the face in the Tube over in London. 'Mistakes' like this should be avoided.
Better hope you never get suspected cos you only got one life dude

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Considering the amount of dead hookers Ben Affleck has removed from his place on an on-going basis, I don't think anyone is going to begrudge the president of killing just 1 little terror suspect..?

BluePlanet

Isabelle Plump Grinder wrote: »

Remember the poor young Brazilian electrician shot 4 times in the face in the Tube over in London. 'Mistakes' like this should be avoided.
Better hope you never get suspected cos you only got one life dude

Actually if that "mistake" happened in the US i wonder would it have even been reviewed?
Sure, the suspect turned out to be innocent but that doesn't mean he wasn't a suspect.
And you know, suspects are guilty (or dead) until provent innocent.

Manic Moran

Isabelle Plump Grinder wrote: »

Do you know if thats a very reliable source??

It can hardly be constitutional...

Regardless of the source, the content is quite accurate. There are a few American individuals who have gone 'over to the other side' in the same manner as John Walker Lindh. The upshot is that if the American is in Yemen or wherever, and is an active and worthwile target as part of the enemy organisation, he's a valid target.

US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If an American joined the German Army in WWII, are you saying that because he's an American an American soldier can't kill him?

That's no different here. The US is effectively in a war against a non-state actor. If the American chooses to throw his lot in with that non-state actor abroad, he also assumes all the risks inherent with that act. If he's captured alive, I'm sure he'll be tried in the US as per Lindh.

NTM

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If an American joined the German Army in WWII, are you saying that because he's an American an American soldier can't kill him?

That's no different here. The US is effectively in a war against a non-state actor. If the American chooses to throw his lot in with that non-state actor, he also assumes all the risks inherent with that act. If he's captured alive, I'm sure he'll be tried in the US as per John Walker Lindh.

NTM

Well you are presuming this new right to kill US citizens is only applicable outside of the us.
But as we've seen with the domestic spying, i doubt that's true.

humanji

Is there any actual proof of this in the constitution or any acts passed etc. So far we've got a third hand source that seems very anti-Obama. Just wondering if it's something taken wildly out of context or if the US has really gone all dystopian on us.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Manic Moran wrote: »

US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If an American joined the German Army in WWII, are you saying that because he's an American an American soldier can't kill him?

That's no different here. The US is effectively in a war against a non-state actor. If the American chooses to throw his lot in with that non-state actor, he also assumes all the risks inherent with that act. If he's captured alive, I'm sure he'll be tried in the US as per John Walker Lindh.

NTM

Point taken

I hadn't read the link and thought it referred to within the US

Pompey Magnus

Manic Moran wrote: »

US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If an American joined the German Army in WWII, are you saying that because he's an American an American soldier can't kill him?

That's no different here. The US is effectively in a war against a non-state actor. If the American chooses to throw his lot in with that non-state actor, he also assumes all the risks inherent with that act. If he's captured alive, I'm sure he'll be tried in the US as per John Walker Lindh.

NTM

+1

Would the people who complain about this also complain if the US President gave the order to kill a Saudi immigrant who was about to commit a terrorist act in the US given no alternative to stop him?

And how would they feel if the same man was discovered to be carrying an American passport, would that change matters?

BluePlanet

Isabelle Plump Grinder wrote: »

Point taken

I hadn't read the link and thought it referred to within the US

Actually it doesn't explicitly state any which way.

humanji

Charco wrote: »

+1

Would the people who complain about this also complain if the US President gave the order to kill a Saudi immigrant who was about to commit a terrorist act in the US given no alternative to stop him?

And how would they feel if the same man was discovered to be carrying an American passport, would that change matters?

It's the "suspected" bit that people are curious about.

Overheal

Charco wrote: »

If any dumb cop is allowed kill bank robbers I don't see the problem with a considered decision by the very highest level of American government to stop a potential terrorist from killing innocent civilians given no alternative action is available to him.

This, and the fact that even behind closed doors the President still needs to Answer to the Cabinet and the Attorney General. There are laws in place which can strip the President of his executive powers under varying conditions and a majority vote in the Cabinet.

Manic Moran

From a slightly more 'even' source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303968.html

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."

Blair told members of the House intelligence committee that he was speaking publicly about the issue to reassure Americans that intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense "follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed" in the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.

Blair's unusually frank remarks come as the issue of targeting Americans for lethal action has attracted more notice. As the United States steps up its campaign against suspected terrorists overseas, it has become more apparent that some extremists may be U.S. citizens.

The most prominent case to date is that of a U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Aulaqi, who lives in Yemen and has been linked to the Army major who allegedly shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.

Aulaqi is a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of the main al-Qaeda organization, and has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter as well as the Nigerian. He was thought to be meeting with regional al-Qaeda leaders at a compound in Yemen targeted by a Dec. 24 strike. He was not said to be the focus of the strike, and he was not killed. But U.S. officials said at the time that they thought he might have been killed.

<Snip>

At least one American has been known to have been killed by an airstrike, although in that case it was incidental as he was just in the same place as a primary Taliban target.

It's the "suspected" bit that people are curious about.

Everyone is 'suspected' until convicted in a court of law. Even if seventeen witnesses have camcorder footage of an event. The drone strikes in Pakistan aren't just flung about willy-nilly, they like to have a pretty good idea that they're attacking someone worth it.

NTM

Pompey Magnus

humanji wrote: »

It's the "suspected" bit that people are curious about.

I'm sure no President is going to issue the order without being pretty sure he is right. That wouldn't look good for him if he was up for re-election or his party if he's not, ordering the killing of an innocent US citizen.

Overheal

The drone strikes in Pakistan aren't just flung about willy-nilly, they like to have a pretty good idea that they're attacking someone worth it.

Certainly. Beyond the exhorbant cost of the ordnance, the predators themselves are far from cheap and the pilot error rate was still incredibly high last I checked. I would imagine the idea would be to fly them as Necessary, not for t3h lulz.

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

The drone strikes in Pakistan aren't just flung about willy-nilly, they like to have a pretty good idea that they're attacking someone worth it.
NTM

Yeah and the resultant civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan surely instill confidence.

Manic Moran

I'm sure no President is going to issue the order without being pretty sure he is right. That wouldn't look good for him if he was up for re-election or his party if he's not, ordering the killing of an innocent US citizen.

I would argue that the nationality should in fact be irrelevant. You don't go around flinging ordnance at people and then say "It's OK. He wasn't an American". Such non-State targets should be (and as far as I know, are) chosen on their merits: There should not a lower standard of proof just because someone's not American.

NTM

humanji

Manic Moran wrote: »

Everyone is 'suspected' until convicted in a court of law. Even if seventeen witnesses have camcorder footage of an event. The drone strikes in Pakistan aren't just flung about willy-nilly, they like to have a pretty good idea that they're attacking someone worth it.

NTM

What I was getting at was the original article saying:

"In an admission that took the intelligence community and its critics by surprise, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism."

The article is making it out to sound like Obama can just say that one of his oponents or any member of the public is a suspect and have them killed. That's why I was looking for something more than that article. It was just a silly bit of non-news that was twisted and blown out of proportion.

biko

See the charter OP - no cross posting for audience allowed, the post in US politics is probably best. Give it time.
Anyone can follow the OP over there to discuss this. Thx.