Whom Can the President Kill?

Whom Can the President Kill?

There are 58 comments on the www.newyorker.com story from Feb 6, 2013, titled Whom Can the President Kill?. In it, www.newyorker.com reports that:

About a third of the way into in a Department of Justice white paper explaining why and when the President can kill American citizens, there is a citation that should give a reader pause. It comes in a section in which the author of the document, which was given to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees last year—and obtained by Michael Isikoff, of NBC, on Monday—says that this power extends into every country in the world other than the United States, well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.newyorker.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#1 Feb 6, 2013
obama: he is just like cheney on steroids. hehehehe!
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#2 Feb 6, 2013
You know we have a fleeing felon rule for police, right here in the united states.

If a person is fleeing and committed a forcible felony and it is not possible to use any other method to capture them they can be shot. The logic is they are presumed to be an extreme danger to the officers, and to the public if they were to be left at large. Officers do have to give warning where feasible before they take the shot but it is perfectly legal.

The only substitution here is you substitute they are dangerous because they are fleeing after committing a forcible felony for they are dangerous because they are senior operational leaders of a group that seeks to kill innocent Americans.

I am just not upset by this or threatened, I don't hang out with terrorists in the middle east, I see it as an occupational hazard if you decide to and not concerned with you meeting a drone.
Oh please

Coffeyville, KS

#3 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
You know we have a fleeing felon rule for police, right here in the united states.
If a person is fleeing and committed a forcible felony and it is not possible to use any other method to capture them they can be shot. The logic is they are presumed to be an extreme danger to the officers, and to the public if they were to be left at large. Officers do have to give warning where feasible before they take the shot but it is perfectly legal.
The only substitution here is you substitute they are dangerous because they are fleeing after committing a forcible felony for they are dangerous because they are senior operational leaders of a group that seeks to kill innocent Americans.
I am just not upset by this or threatened, I don't hang out with terrorists in the middle east, I see it as an occupational hazard if you decide to and not concerned with you meeting a drone.
Perhaps you should look into what and whom the Obama's justice department now considers "terriost" before you decide if you hang out with any or may be one yourself.
Basically it means Obama or any of his DOJ cronies can kill anyone they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they decide they want. Now just where does that fit in our constitution, especially considering they went around Congress yet again to come up with this illegal crap.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#4 Feb 6, 2013
Oh please wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should look into what and whom the Obama's justice department now considers "terriost" before you decide if you hang out with any or may be one yourself.
Basically it means Obama or any of his DOJ cronies can kill anyone they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they decide they want. Now just where does that fit in our constitution, especially considering they went around Congress yet again to come up with this illegal crap.
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.

You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
Oh please

Coffeyville, KS

#5 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
And you obviously have not read whom good o'l Janet thinks should be considered "terriost".

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#6 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
Just food for thought. Think about it.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."--- Thomas Paine

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#7 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
You know we have a fleeing felon rule for police, right here in the united states.
If a person is fleeing and committed a forcible felony and it is not possible to use any other method to capture them they can be shot. The logic is they are presumed to be an extreme danger to the officers, and to the public if they were to be left at large. Officers do have to give warning where feasible before they take the shot but it is perfectly legal.
The only substitution here is you substitute they are dangerous because they are fleeing after committing a forcible felony for they are dangerous because they are senior operational leaders of a group that seeks to kill innocent Americans.
I am just not upset by this or threatened, I don't hang out with terrorists in the middle east, I see it as an occupational hazard if you decide to and not concerned with you meeting a drone.
Stay out of Doraville, there are terrorists there. And I don't like the sound of Smyrna.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#8 Feb 6, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Just food for thought. Think about it.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."--- Thomas Paine
Self defense does not constitute oppression and there is no basis in law to forbid this, else people who believe as you do would have stopped it. In fact the aclu tried and the court would not listen to their argument.

Perhaps if you had a family member killed by terrorists or a family member in the armed service you would feel different. These people, alqeda and their associates are trying to kill our soldiers in afghanistan, and our citizens here, sometimes they are successful, I offer them no quarter from drones.
Barry O

United States

#9 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
Uh, you might want to look at US drone operations conducted while Obama has been in office and the number of civilian causalities due to the operations. Up to 780 civilians.

“My Commander-in-Chi ef!”

Since: Jun 07

Obama got Osama!

#10 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
The right don't care about national security the Constitution or justice all they care about is how much hate they can spew towards President Obama... But I have been saying for the last 4 years how much you can contrast the brilliance of President Obama against the stupidity and ignorance Of George W Bush and look at the results.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
So, it's ok for Obama to disregard Constitutional rights by executing - ASSASSINATING - American citizens without due process?

Just a few years ago democrats accused Bush of "shredding our Constitution" by monitoring international phone calls of suspected terrorists.

Did you also forget that Bush "shredded the Constitution" by keeping terrorists detained at Gitmo without trials?
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#12 Feb 6, 2013
Barry O wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, you might want to look at US drone operations conducted while Obama has been in office and the number of civilian causalities due to the operations. Up to 780 civilians.
You have a good point and we should take steps to avoid that, as should the host countries for these terrorists perhaps they should throw them out or kill them themselves so that we don't have to.

I realize I am pretty selfish about this sort of thing, I am more concerned about being effective than being fair. Given the choice between a brutal over reaction that would cause people to leave me alone out of fear or people having good will toward me because I am known for a making a less effective measured response I will go for brutal every time. I just want to be left alone.
Oh please

Coffeyville, KS

#13 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it's ok for Obama to disregard Constitutional rights by executing - ASSASSINATING - American citizens without due process?
Just a few years ago democrats accused Bush of "shredding our Constitution" by monitoring international phone calls of suspected terrorists.
Did you also forget that Bush "shredded the Constitution" by keeping terrorists detained at Gitmo without trials?
I remember Gitmo. That's the place that Obama campaigned on closing and yet he not only didn't keep that promise but he has since come out and made it clear it will NOT be closed at all. And yet you hear NOTHING from the left about that.

It appears if Obama does it then it is right and best for the country, even if it was wrong when Bush did the same thing or even things not as bad. Personally I would rather my government listen in on my calls then just decide I am a danger and kill me without any kind of trial or chance to defend myself.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#14 Feb 6, 2013
Oh please wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember Gitmo. That's the place that Obama campaigned on closing and yet he not only didn't keep that promise but he has since come out and made it clear it will NOT be closed at all. And yet you hear NOTHING from the left about that.
It appears if Obama does it then it is right and best for the country, even if it was wrong when Bush did the same thing or even things not as bad. Personally I would rather my government listen in on my calls then just decide I am a danger and kill me without any kind of trial or chance to defend myself.
The Constitutional hypocrisy of the left is astounding.
Whatevea

Seattle, WA

#15 Feb 6, 2013
It seems lke he's trying real hard to kill america.

Since: Dec 07

Athens, TX

#16 Feb 6, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what he is doing seems perfectly logical to me and I wish bush had done more of it instead of going tromping around killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take it you would have rather Obama not kill whats his name and just left him working on his plots to kill americans.
You obviously did not read the papers that created the stir, said nothing about killing who you wanted when you wanted.
Bush put the policies together that nobama used to get bin laden. Where have you been since 9/11??

Examples of Mr. Obama, now in his fourth year as president, adopting Bush-era measures:

Special operations forces. One of the first steps taken by President Bush after Sept. 11 was to revive, fund and expand special operations forces as the dog that would hunt down and kill terrorists.

President Bush also made U.S. Special Operations a war-independent command, just like U.S. Central Command, meaning it could plan and execute its own battle plans.

The U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the Army's Delta Force and Navy’s SEAL Team 6 mostly had focused on hostage rescue. After Sept. 11, they started receiving the manpower and intelligence to become manhunters. Their biggest successes: Saddam Hussein; al Qaeda’s top Iraq terrorist, Abu Musab Zarqawi; and Osama bin Laden.

Special Ops/Intelligence. The Bush administration fused commandos with the nation’s intelligence agencies — the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency — into task forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush also transferred a highly secretive military intelligence unit, which specialized in technical surveillance and intercepts, to the Joint Special Operations Command so that commandos and intelligence experts could work together directly.

Predator strikes. The Bush administration established Predator drone bases in Pakistan to strike at al Qaeda and Taliban extremists in that country’s frontier badlands, where U.S. ground troops cannot go.

Since: Dec 07

Athens, TX

#17 Feb 6, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
The right don't care about national security the Constitution or justice all they care about is how much hate they can spew towards President Obama... But I have been saying for the last 4 years how much you can contrast the brilliance of President Obama against the stupidity and ignorance Of George W Bush and look at the results.
Look at the above post, you phoney. The policies used by nobama ARE President Bush's. Thank you for admitting Bush was brilliant in designing policies that should've been done by clinton after 7 attacks from al queda on his watch. He was too busy chasing interns around the oval office to worry about al queda and left it with Bush.

You're really a jerk!
Oh please

Coffeyville, KS

#18 Feb 6, 2013
What is not shocking about this is the lack of coverage and outrage by the media. They campaigned for and made sure that their golden boy Obama was elected. They won't cover anything that might not look good for the president and that includes even the things Obama is doing that were constantly criticized when Bush did them. Including the many many things Obama not only continues from the Bush presidency but goes much further with them than Bush ever did.
Obama is destroying this country and doing so with not only the blessing of the media but the assistance of them.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#19 Feb 6, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
The right don't care about national security the Constitution or justice all they care about is how much hate they can spew towards President Obama... But I have been saying for the last 4 years how much you can contrast the brilliance of President Obama against the stupidity and ignorance Of George W Bush and look at the results.
Bush = Obama
Obama = Bush

Obama is following the same policies as Bush, except for the part about using drones to murder combatants and non-combatants alike.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#20 Feb 6, 2013
Barry O wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, you might want to look at US drone operations conducted while Obama has been in office and the number of civilian causalities due to the operations. Up to 780 civilians.
Tis truly is a terrible number. More so, because their families will hate us forever. Never mind that they were hobnobbing with, al Qaeda or worse, the perception and story is that we are killing all these innocent people, civilians.

The alternative, of course, is US troops on the ground, being blown up, shot down, ground up, turned into pieces.

The other course is to abandon the area, and pay the price in a few years, when the terrorists have created modern terrorist-states.

DO you have the answer?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Chimney1 209,915
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 15 min USA 11,279
News CBS' "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" Premieres O... 26 min PurpleDreams 904
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 30 min USAsince1680 1,433,288
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 47 min valerie 395,974
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 57 min ChristineM 21,405
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 58 min Y the double stan... 147
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Uncle Tab 244,026
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr District 1 225,420
News Post-debate poll: Clinton takes round one 4 hr reality 266
More from around the web