Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

My Race Log

Subject: ...

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by triarcher 2010-04-07 4:21 PM

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:19 PM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Wow one post in and we're already doing the Bush comparison thing. Come on Jim. (and welcome back)

I would assume not as we are giving people who were NEVER us citizen the same rights as US citizens (KSM etc..) Not saying it's right or wrong but that's the precedent.

So we're spending millions of dollars to try a foreign enemy combatant but we're just putting the hit out on a (ex?) US citizen. Seems to be at odds with one another, no?

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-04-07 4:39 PM

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-07 5:37 PM

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:19 PM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Wow one post in and we're already doing the Bush comparison thing. Come on Jim.

I would assume not as we are giving people who were NEVER us citizen the same rights as US citizens (KSM etc..) Not saying it's right or wrong but that's the precedent.

So we're spending millions of dollars to try a foreign enemy combatant but we're just putting the hit out on a (ex?) US citizen. Seems to be at odds with one another, no?

No...I'm not doing that. It's just saying it's very confusing for me--as I'm sure it is for lots of folks. Seems like hard-core conservatives that backed the Bush doctrine would have a hard time finding fault in the policy, while liberals who bashed bush's policies would have a hard time getting behind it.

And for the record...you did the Bush comparison thing in the OP. I was pretty much just agreeing with you.

Edited by run4yrlif 2010-04-07 4:45 PM

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-07 5:37 PM

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:19 PM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Wow one post in and we're already doing the Bush comparison thing. Come on Jim. (and welcome back)

I would assume not as we are giving people who were NEVER us citizen the same rights as US citizens (KSM etc..) Not saying it's right or wrong but that's the precedent.

So we're spending millions of dollars to try a foreign enemy combatant but we're just putting the hit out on a (ex?) US citizen. Seems to be at odds with one another, no?

I need more information, beyond the opinion piece/link you provided. I don't think his status of citizen will weigh into my opinion, however. If he is plotting attacks against the US, his birthplace is inconsequential to my way of thinking. But ... I need more information.

I think Jim's Bushy comment was right on. People didn't want a Bushy POTUS; they thought they were getting something different. That is relevant, especially when considering the expectations with this president were very different than with the previous. That said, it's an aside comment and doesn't weigh into the legality, morality or soundness of this issue, IMO. I don't think Jim was suggesting otherwise, either, though I do not wish to speak for him.

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

I'm conflicted on this one. While I tend to be hawkish from a military standpoint, I question the morality of state-sanctioned murder/assassination based on idealogical viewpoints outside of actual combat. How is that any different from what we consider to be terrorism? Are the rule of law and due process only applicable when it's convenient?

How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing?

Mark

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

378

Seattle

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

I saw this article and have been following it a little. I'm extremely disappointed.

Regarding Renee's comment above - I agree that if we can prove someone is plotting terrorist acts against the US, there is justification for taking steps against that person.

However, as the author of the piece (Glenn Greenwald) says - how do we know? There has been no trial, no due process, and the guy involved has repeatedly denied inolvement (well duh you might say, but still...).

All that's happened is that "counter-terrorism officials" have said they have reason to believe he is plotting, and the next step is that we kill the guy. I want to believe those officals too, but they've been wrong before...

As someone who supports Obama more often than not, this is a big issue for me.

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

RedCorvette - 2010-04-07 6:08 PM

I'm conflicted on this one. While I tend to be hawkish from a military standpoint, I question the morality of state-sanctioned murder/assassination based on idealogical viewpoints outside of actual combat. How is that any different from what we consider to be terrorism? Are the rule of law and due process only applicable when it's convenient?

How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing?

Mark

I like your questions, Mark.

Subject: ...

This user's post has been ignored.

Subject: ...

This user's post has been ignored.

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-07 5:37 PM

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:19 PM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Wow one post in and we're already doing the Bush comparison thing.
...

I voted for Obama, but in the whole terrorism arena, he absolutely echoes Bush II. Jon Stewart used to run clips with essentially side by side speeches from both Obama and Bush, and the rhetoric was identical. I don't know if Obama is trying to overcompensate for the "Obama is a secret muslim" thing, or if there is some deep dark secret that only the POTUS and a few others get to know, that makes them follow this line of reasoning. I do know that it is an area where I feel very disappointed in Obama. If there is some reason that we should keep antagonizing a part of the world that is already inflamed against us, I would like to know, rather than having some sort of star chamber making all the decisions. It is the opposite of the priniciples of open democratic process that the country's ideals are based upon, and the Obama promised us. Of course, Bush said he was going to be a uniter, not a divider - I guess whenever their lips are moving and sound comes out, we should assume they are all lying SOB's.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:40 PM

And for the record...you did the Bush comparison thing in the OP. I was pretty much just agreeing with you.

I was trying to nip it in the bud by pointing out that yes Bush started the list. I just did not want this to turn into a Bush vs Obama thread. Trying to keep it as neutral as possible.

And for the record I agree, their stance on this is very similar.

My Race Log

Runner

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:40 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-04-07 5:37 PM

run4yrlif - 2010-04-07 5:19 PM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Wow one post in and we're already doing the Bush comparison thing. Come on Jim.

I would assume not as we are giving people who were NEVER us citizen the same rights as US citizens (KSM etc..) Not saying it's right or wrong but that's the precedent.

So we're spending millions of dollars to try a foreign enemy combatant but we're just putting the hit out on a (ex?) US citizen. Seems to be at odds with one another, no?

No...I'm not doing that. It's just saying it's very confusing for me--as I'm sure it is for lots of folks. Seems like hard-core conservatives that backed the Bush doctrine would have a hard time finding fault in the policy, while liberals who bashed bush's policies would have a hard time getting behind it.

And for the record...you did the Bush comparison thing in the OP. I was pretty much just agreeing with you.

Define "hard-core conservative" and "liberal". I have a feeling you are using these terms to denote party affiliation rather than political philosophy, but I could be mistaken.

My Race Log

Elite

4547

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

I read the article and let me say I'm happy he's taken this step. Obviously, the article is slanted as an anti-Obama smear-piece. It's too bad reporters can't just stick to facts...again, that just doesn't sell copy.
Honestly, is anybody surprised our president wasn't going to be tough on terrorists? Early in the presidential campaign, one of my favorite moments was when Barack Obama answered the question about what he would do as Commander in Chief if we had reliable intelligence that Al Qaeda was in Pakistan and Pakistani forces either couldn't or wouldn't take action. He said our forces would eliminate the threat. He took a lot of heat from Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, and even Hillary for being "aggressive," "naive," etc.
I don't think there's anything naive about it.
btw, the "questionnaire answers?" Well, I think we can all agree that things change once you're in the position of POTUS.
Again, my opinion of this article is that it's typical grasping at straws. The right is having trouble in the demonification of the president. Is he the weak, liberal softy? or the heavy-handed Chicago machine boss?? Once they glom onto one adjective the president proves them wrong. Perhaps all this makes it evident the president is leading the country as more of a centrist than the folks on the right want to admit?

My Training Log My Race Log

Master

1895

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

I have a feeling this has been going on for a very long time, pre Bush and Obama...it just wasn't advertised in the "news".

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

ChineseDemocracy - 2010-04-08 8:54 AM I read the article and let me say I'm happy he's taken this step. Obviously, the article is slanted as an anti-Obama smear-piece. It's too bad reporters can't just stick to facts...again, that just doesn't sell copy.
Honestly, is anybody surprised our president wasn't going to be tough on terrorists? Early in the presidential campaign, one of my favorite moments was when Barack Obama answered the question about what he would do as Commander in Chief if we had reliable intelligence that Al Qaeda was in Pakistan and Pakistani forces either couldn't or wouldn't take action. He said our forces would eliminate the threat. He took a lot of heat from Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, and even Hillary for being "aggressive," "naive," etc.
I don't think there's anything naive about it.
btw, the "questionnaire answers?" Well, I think we can all agree that things change once you're in the position of POTUS.
Again, my opinion of this article is that it's typical grasping at straws. The right is having trouble in the demonification of the president. Is he the weak, liberal softy? or the heavy-handed Chicago machine boss?? Once they glom onto one adjective the president proves them wrong. Perhaps all this makes it evident the president is leading the country as more of a centrist than the folks on the right want to admit?

I don't know as you can call salon.com a bastion of right wing think.

Champion

5807

Henderson NV

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

RedCorvette - 2010-04-07 3:08 PM

I'm conflicted on this one. While I tend to be hawkish from a military standpoint, I question the morality of state-sanctioned murder/assassination based on idealogical viewpoints outside of actual combat. How is that any different from what we consider to be terrorism? Are the rule of law and due process only applicable when it's convenient?

How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing?

Mark

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation. That being said my belief system is basically that there is good and bad. There are some gray, but outweighed by Good and Bad.

How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing?

This is almost funny if I didn't think you were kidding. 1 of the few rules in this area was that heads of state would not be listed as targets.

I have come to the conclusion I really shouldn't get into these discussions....LOL.

My Race Log

Melon Presser

52116

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

run4yrlif - 2010-04-08 6:19 AM It is interesting, as classifying US citizens as enemy combatants to deprive them of their constitutional rights seems very Bushy.

Legal question: do you lose rights as an ex-pat living on foreign soil?

Not at all, but the U.S.'s (and likely your) ability to assert those rights is of course severely hampered.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

saling4 - 2010-04-08 9:03 AM

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation.

This just raises an interesting point. The Obama admin is granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens (I disagree w/ this but that's besides the point).

However they are taking away due process from a true American citizen (again this guy has been anti-American for a long time but he is indeed "legally" a citizen).

These decisions seem to be at 100% opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we accept decision A when decision B says the total opposite?

My Race Log

Elite

4547

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-08 9:29 AM

saling4 - 2010-04-08 9:03 AM These decisions seem to be at 100% opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we accept decision A when decision B says the total opposite?

Perhaps there are other circumstances we are not privy to?

My Training Log My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-08 9:29 AM

saling4 - 2010-04-08 9:03 AM

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation.

This just raises an interesting point. The Obama admin is granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens (I disagree w/ this but that's besides the point).

However they are taking away due process from a true American citizen (again this guy has been anti-American for a long time but he is indeed "legally" a citizen).

These decisions seem to be at 100% opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we accept decision A when decision B says the total opposite?

When you understand that the way you characterize decision A is laden with a misunderstanding of what we do with people in our custody, then it becomes easy to understand decision A.

We aren't "granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens" - we are processing alleged criminals who are in are custody. Something we do everyday, in every town in the US of A. This isn't something special or out of the ordinary - it's what we do with people in our custody. Doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, if you are in custody, you are processed through the justice system.

Melon Presser

52116

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

saling4 - 2010-04-08 10:03 PM

RedCorvette - 2010-04-07 3:08 PM

I'm conflicted on this one. While I tend to be hawkish from a military standpoint, I question the morality of state-sanctioned murder/assassination based on idealogical viewpoints outside of actual combat. How is that any different from what we consider to be terrorism? Are the rule of law and due process only applicable when it's convenient?

How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing?

Mark

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation. That being said my belief system is basically that there is good and bad. There are some gray, but outweighed by Good and Bad. How would we react if a foreign power, say Iran, did the same thing? This is almost funny if I didn't think you were kidding. 1 of the few rules in this area was that heads of state would not be listed as targets. I have come to the conclusion I really shouldn't get into these discussions....LOL.

Unless he has gone through the formal renunciation process at a U.S. embassy (not even a consulate), he remains a U.S. citizen.

Like marriage, there's a formal, legal procedure. You can't just say, "I'm not a U.S. citizen" and have it be so.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Renee - 2010-04-08 9:33 AM

TriRSquared - 2010-04-08 9:29 AM

saling4 - 2010-04-08 9:03 AM

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation.

This just raises an interesting point. The Obama admin is granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens (I disagree w/ this but that's besides the point).

However they are taking away due process from a true American citizen (again this guy has been anti-American for a long time but he is indeed "legally" a citizen).

These decisions seem to be at 100% opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we accept decision A when decision B says the total opposite?

When you understand that the way you characterize decision A is laden with a misunderstanding of what we do with people in our custody, then it becomes easy to understand decision A.

We aren't "granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens" - we are processing alleged criminals who are in are custody. Something we do everyday, in every town in the US of A. This isn't something special or out of the ordinary - it's what we do with people in our custody. Doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, if you are in custody, you are processed through the justice system.

By your very admission decision B, assassinating a US citizen w/o trial, is at odds with decision A.

Unless you are saying we should just kill 'em all *before* they are in our custody...

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-04-08 8:51 AM

My Race Log

Champion

5615

Subject: RE: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

TriRSquared - 2010-04-08 9:49 AM

Renee - 2010-04-08 9:33 AM

TriRSquared - 2010-04-08 9:29 AM

saling4 - 2010-04-08 9:03 AM

Due process and all these nice legal things are American ideals and apply to Americans. If this person denounce American citizenship then he is whatever he is. I know this sounds really really bad, but remember we are typing in a few words and not in a conversation.

This just raises an interesting point. The Obama admin is granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens (I disagree w/ this but that's besides the point).

However they are taking away due process from a true American citizen (again this guy has been anti-American for a long time but he is indeed "legally" a citizen).

These decisions seem to be at 100% opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we accept decision A when decision B says the total opposite?

When you understand that the way you characterize decision A is laden with a misunderstanding of what we do with people in our custody, then it becomes easy to understand decision A.

We aren't "granting the 911 suspects full rights to a trial just as if they *were* American citizens" - we are processing alleged criminals who are in are custody. Something we do everyday, in every town in the US of A. This isn't something special or out of the ordinary - it's what we do with people in our custody. Doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, if you are in custody, you are processed through the justice system.

By your very admission decision B, assassinating a US citizen w/o trial, is at odds with decision A.

Unless you are saying we should just kill 'em all *before* they are in our custody...

You are absolutely correct in this statement. If he is a current US citizen, he should be provided due process even if that due process is carried out in his absence.

My Race Log

Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

REGISTER TODAY