Who Thought We Would Ever Be Here?

[Gaspar]

AG Holder argues that The President has the right to kill American citizens at will, and without judicial review, and his fearful minions refuse to rebut what they know is illegal. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/who-says-you-can-kill-americans-mr-president.html

[Conan71]

Really? Sourcing the NYT, that bastion of conservatism?

[Gaspar]

Really? Sourcing the NYT, that bastion of conservatism?

I balanced it with a FOX clip.

[Townsend]

Really? Sourcing the NYT, that bastion of conservatism?

An op-ed from someone who was fired from her job for leaking information to the NYT.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/ExSenate_intelligence_aide_denies_being_fired_over_leak.html

[Gaspar]

But the messenger here was actually the AG who continues to make the argument that the president has the right to kill Americans without judicial process.   I have no problem with the hundreds of foreign combatants he has offed on a whim, but when you start saying that the president can order the death of an American citizen without any accountability, something is wrong.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312411432248495.html

[Townsend]

when you start saying that the president can order the death of an American citizen without any accountability, something is wrong.

I honestly believe that has always been reality.

We've chosen to think our government, heads of departments, presidents, etc. wouldn't.  Tin foil hat or not, I bet they do.

[cannon_fodder]

Again, don't fae this as an Obama issue.  Bush had similar situations but was never so clear on the argument.

On point - we target and ki Americans all the time.  Be it US citizens who responded to The Call and fought for Nazi Germany, or a fugitive running for the police.  Each under established rules but without due process.  The expansion into targeted killings (assassinations) is a disturbing trend that deserves scrutiny. 

But I suspect Townsend is right...  it has been the quiet status quo.

[Gaspar]

Again, don't fae this as an Obama issue.  Bush had similar situations but was never so clear on the argument.

On point - we target and ki Americans all the time.  Be it US citizens who responded to The Call and fought for Nazi Germany, or a fugitive running for the police.  Each under established rules but without due process.  The expansion into targeted killings (assassinations) is a disturbing trend that deserves scrutiny. 

But I suspect Townsend is right...  it has been the quiet status quo.

Oh, I don't, but that does not make it right. . . and we have never had an attorney general willing to articulate that it IS right, until now.

I'm sure there is precedent, but none justifiable under the constitution.  Any citizen or police officer must justify the use of deadly force, and is required to stand for some form of review of each incident.  If our President wishes to order the assassination of an American citizen, shouldn't he face the same review process?

These are no longer the clandestine operations of the past.  They are carried out in broad daylight with the world watching.  There is no denial, on the contrary, there are press conferences. In many cases several innocents are also killed.  Are those lives somehow less valuable?

So we kill an American terrorist who happens to be in Yemen at a stoplight.  Why would that be any different than killing a drug dealer in Detroit as he sitts in a coffee house with his family, or a thief sitting on a park bench?

If we are willing to openly accept that it is ok for our government to kill any American they perceve as a threat, what have we become?

I can't imagine being ok with this.  Why capture and bring to trial any criminal when it is easier "safer" and more efficient to just carry out executive justice?



At least Judge Dredd gave the condemned an opportunity to plea for their lives.

[nathanm]

Hmm, I think you forgot somebody:

[Gaspar]

Hmm, I think you forgot somebody:

Can you provide an example of an argument or public statement he made asserting that the president has the right to kill American citizens at will without judicial review, or are you just being Nate?

[Hoss]

Can you provide an example of an argument or public statement he made asserting that the president has the right to kill American citizens at will without judicial review, or are you just being Nate?

As you've told other people, "Google it".

[Townsend]

As you've told other people, "Google it".

He's feeling empowered like a 1980 Enjoli woman.

[nathanm]

Can you provide an example of an argument or public statement he made asserting that the president has the right to kill American citizens at will without judicial review, or are you just being Nate?

He and John Yoo asserted that the President has the right to do whatever he pleases as long as it can somehow be related to his power as commander in chief. I don't agree with that argument. I also don't agree with your attempt to score political points on the issue when your own party is not only complicit, but originated the idea and wholeheartedly supported it when their guy was in the White House.

[guido911]

He and John Yoo asserted that the President has the right to do whatever he pleases as long as it can somehow be related to his power as commander in chief.

Care to source that?

With that said, I see this thread as nothing more than pointing out the left's double standard on this. When Bush did something akin to this, it was cause for a nationwide Depends moment.