What scares me most about Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Obama argues his assassination program is a "state secret" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

This scares me more than pretty much anything Obama has done. The government is basically arguing that they can assassinate US citizens far away from a battlefield with no due process, oversight, follow-up, or otherwise legal conditions, and they don't need to tell anyone because it all falls under "state secrets".

Now, this particular guy? He sounds pretty sketchy, but saying inflammatory things isn't exactly proof, and as to the veracity of whatever other evidence the government may have, well, that's kind of the point of due process. :mad:
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

The Presidential Assassination Program

I'll look into this again. But before it is a case of arrest the guy and if he resists, kill the suspect. Much like any man-hunt of some one thought to be armed and dangerous. This is not like the Ike-Kennedy-Nixon plots to kill foreign leaders.

lets change the title before Dave has to talk to the Secret Service.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

You know what happens before a targeted suspect gets killed resisting arrest? Someone goes to a judge and gets a warrant to arrest him.



Changed the title to avoid causing potential issues for Dave.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
What the hell?

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

Are there any links supporting these assertions other than other Salon.com articles?
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

Another article treating this as an assassination plot against Awlaki.

The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.
Click to expand...
That is what I remember about him. It is a man hunt against a terrorist suspect, the soldiers (Special Forces/SEAL's, etc.) will be able to capture him with their weapons loaded and ready to fire. If he resists, he will die. If he surrenders he will be brought to the States or Camp X-Ray.
 
strawman

strawman

Dave said:
What the hell?

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

Are there any links supporting these assertions other than other Salon.com articles?
Click to expand...
Links are in the article, which include this one: washingtonpost.com

There are about 514 other news reports on this particular case: state secret - Google Search

Here's what seems to be happening:

1. There is a suspected terrorist outside the US who the military is officially targeting - ie, they will kill him if the opportunity presents itself.
2. The suspect is a US citizen.
3. The suspect's father has pettitioned the courts to have the US stop targeting him.
4. The executive branch (president) has entered a brief into the court record asking that the case be dismissed as the relevant evidence against the suspect is considered state secret.

The Salon article emphasizes the general concept - a US citizen may, in fact, be killed without due process even if he's merely sipping coffee at some cafe when the military have the opportunity and means to kill him. The military could capture him but they may decide to kill him if capture is inconvenient - it is up to them.

So the question is - does being a citizen mean that you cannot be targeted militarily regardless of the evidence against you? To take it to the extreme, if Bin Laden can prove his US citizenship, then must we miss opportunities to take him down simply because we have to try him in a court of law first? If we try him without him being present, the evidence provided at the trial may give him means to continue to evade capture. If we keep the trial evidence secret, then if he sends a representative (lawyer) then it cannot possibly be a fair trial if they cannot give him the evidence due to being a state secret.

To some degree it's a catch-22.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I am a pretty gung-ho guy, but you need to either attempt the capture, or kill him trying to get the terrorist standing next to him. To target an American Citizen should fall under the Un-Constitutional Category.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
I am a pretty gung-ho guy, but you need to either attempt the capture, or kill him trying to get the terrorist standing next to him. To target an American Citizen should fall under the Un-Constitutional Category.
Click to expand...
It pretty much does.

Just to be clear, we can't have any illusions on the power of any government, let alone our own, to make people "disappear".

But between that and making it explicitly legal to do so without any due process or oversight is a whole 'nother level of awful.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Without any due process?

1) international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country

2) 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. The CIA and the Military maintain said list

3) because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

This has gone through a process. They could have tried him in absentia for Treason, but by doing so they are invalidating their claim that this subject falls under this international system, which slows them down, which is not good when you are going after someone that is actively trying to attack civilians.

I can see the concern here, and yeah, we really do need a new judicial system for stuff like this, but I think in this case this is the best option. For me, when the question comes down to 'is this a military or a civil matter' when we are talking about terrorists, I feel that when expedience is key you need to treat it as a military matter. So in this case, you should look at it as a military matter, but once the person has been captured in thoroughly interrogated by the military (thorough as a concept can be defined by the military) then you need to approach it as a civil matter.

Think of the Rosenbergs. Nobody really knows for sure how they were returned to the United States. It was either through the Mexican Military or the Mexican Secret Police. Probably a combination of both.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

You realize that the National Security Council is a presidential advisory committee made up of Cabinet officials, right?

So the executive branch is saying that it can kill an American citizen in a non-combat situation because the evidence for his treason has been reviewed and approved by the executive branch.

How is that a process?

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------
Necronic said:
For me, when the question comes down to 'is this a military or a civil matter' when we are talking about terrorists
Click to expand...
How do we know he's a terrorist?
 
C

Chazwozel

What? You guys never knew about secret killings in the name of government? Clearly, you don't play enough Medal of Honor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top