Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

[decocker 7,198]

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens.

Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/who-says-you-can-kill-americans-mr-president.html

Edited January 17, 2013 by val erie

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Avoid chilling in places where terrorists gather, train, recruit, and plot and you should be safe from a drone strike falling on your head.

[decocker 7,198]

Avoid chilling in places where terrorists gather, train, recruit, and plot and you should be safe from a drone strike falling on your head.

so you don't care to know how the potus interpreted these powers from the constitution? not even a little interested?

tell me, how does the potus legally define who a terrorist is?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

so you don't care to know how the potus interpreted these powers from the constitution? not even a little interested?

tell me, how does the potus legally define who a terrorist is?

So far the only Americans killed in anti-terrorism operations have been quite justified. Yes it is an interesting constitutional question but really I have been fine with those operations thus far.

[decocker 7,198]

So far the only Americans killed in anti-terrorism operations have been quite justified. Yes it is an interesting constitutional question but really I have been fine with those operations thus far.

having that power open to whoever is next elected is okay too?

[^_^ 5,021]

having that power open to whoever is next elected is okay too?

if they use it as a weapon in the war on terror and not as a weapon in the war on assault rifles, then yes.. it's ok.

[decocker 7,198]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358455900' post='5927928]

if they use it as a weapon in the war on terror and not as a weapon in the war on assault rifles, then yes.. it's ok.

just checking. i was thinking since there is still no legal definition of terrorism, that some of our more extreme right wing friends might be a tad worried that they might some day fall under the terrorist label..but i guess that only holds true for the OWS crowd.

[^_^ 5,021]

just checking. i was thinking since there is still no legal definition of terrorism, that some of our more extreme right wing friends might be a tad worried that they might some day fall under the terrorist label..but i guess that only holds true for the OWS crowd.

no, the seditionists on the right are anti-drone too.

ows is a quasi-terrorist organization so it isn't shocking they'd have a problem with drones.

Edited January 17, 2013 by ^_^

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358456554' post='5927953]

no, the seditionists on the right are anti-drone too.

They are anti-drone because they believe it is cowardly not to face your enemy before you scatter his brains all over the wall. Since they are all packing heat, hoping some minority kid mouths off to them, so they pull out their piece and pop a few caps into the perp, I wonder why they are not the first ones in line to ship off to Al Qaedastan. Perhaps they score too low on the ASVAB to qualify for Infantry, or they don't meet the height/weight requirements, or fail the physical for some other reason. If that is the case, they are not the type of minute men America needs to protect us from tyranny.