Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen

[glatt]

I don't see how this is any different than an undeclared war like Vietnam. I don't particularly like it, but history clearly shows that the President has the power to blow things up and do random violent shit in other countries without Congress declaring war. That's what we are talking about here. How does it matter who is being blown up?

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

International law may be another issue, but that only matters if somebody enforces it. Also, if Congress passes a law that says you can't do something specific, like support the Contras, you might get in trouble if you do.

[Griff]

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It started way before Truman. There has always been threats to the US that the Federal Govenment has had to deal with, the only difference now is we know more about it.


Some people just need killin'.

[Griff]

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

What would we have done differently? Not support the Shah? At the time is served our national interests.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

Right now, I trust the executive branch more than I trust congress, to make rational decisions.

Originally Posted by Griff

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

As a result of CIA excesses from Truman through Nixon, legislation resulting from the Church Committee restored some level of control and accountability over the CIA.

As a result of presidential actions by Johnson/Nixon in Viet Nam, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (Resolution).

Since 9/11, those Executive Branch excesses and/or unilateral interpretation of US laws and treaty obligations, have returned.

The Executive Branch alone should not be able to adjudicate on the rights of citizens or what constitutes legal enhanced interrogation as opposed to torture or other abuses we have seen (extraordinary rendition, improper use of National Security Letters by the FBI, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason? Or should we, maybe, specify exactly what the acceptable parameters are here?

Doing something "just this once" because it "feels right" is a stupid way to make decisions in any area of life, and this is no different. If something seems like a "no brainer" it is because you aren't USING your brain.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason?

Patriots have no reason to leave the country, unless of course they're in the military going to do god's work. Anybody else, snuff 'em... and their children... and their cats.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason?

But it is for a reason and with a purpose. Whether it is right or wrong is another question. But it certainly has purpose.

[Flint]

I'm not an idiot. I'm saying that when something needs to be done, it needs to be done RIGHT. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not an idiot. I'm saying that when something needs to be done, it needs to be done RIGHT. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

I never meant to imply you were an idiot. The disagrement I suspect is the definition of what is "RIGHT".

[Flint]

I would have to be an idiot not to know there is a reason/purpose that applies in this limited instance. I would REALLY have to be an idiot not to know why there is a difference between this guy and jinx/lj. Congratulations to jinx on the Captain Obvious award--you win!

I don't disagree with what needs to be done, or whether it is "right" or not. I mean nothing more an nothing less than exactly what I've said. What is at issue is HOW we do this. IF: there is no procedure to separate this guy into a different category from other citizens THEN: what happens to this guy applies to EVERY citizen. This is not rocket science. What seems like a good idea "just this once" usually isn't a good basis for decision making.

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by Flint

In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Or the Nut for that matter.