-
Guest
Too Much Power for a President
Oped criticizing Obama for his WoT tactics, albeit in a "the next guy may not be as virtuous as he" way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/op...4B4391F65A04D8
What do people think of NYT's proposal in the last paragraph?
A unilateral campaign of death is untenable. To provide real assurance, President Obama should publish clear guidelines for targeting to be carried out by nonpoliticians, making assassination truly a last resort, and allow an outside court to review the evidence before placing Americans on a kill list. And it should release the legal briefs upon which the targeted killing was based.
-
I have no problems at all with what Obama is doing with his WoT tactics. He should be lauded for continuing a strategy implemented by Bush and whoever occupies the oval office the next four years should maintain the course.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
I too have no problem with it. Especially if he is making the final decisions. The Buck Stops somewhere, Might as well be at his desk.
My problem with this is who's doing the talking for the government, who has access to this info & why? And the biggie who's doing the leaking.
-
Guest
 Originally Posted by RussianRed
I too have no problem with it. Especially if he is making the final decisions. The Buck Stops somewhere, Might as well be at his desk.
My problem with this is who's doing the talking for the government, who has access to this info & why? And the biggie who's doing the leaking.
I think Obama provided the information about his role in a recent interview.
Do anyone think whoever makes the "final call" should need to publish as much information as possible to justify assassination, especially of a US citizen? If not, how does society check that power and ensure it's deployed wisely?
-
I think it is a good idea to have a tribunal of some kind review the evidence before Americans living on foreign soil can be placed on a list for assassination, provided that confidentiality of the evidence can be strictly maintained. The Fifth Amendment provides that no citizen can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and I believe that needs to be adhered to even when the citizen has become a terrorist or a traitor.
"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II
-
Originally Posted by cm husker
I think Obama provided the information about his role in a recent interview.
Do anyone think whoever makes the "final call" should need to publish as much information as possible to justify assassination, especially of a US citizen? If not, how does society check that power and ensure it's deployed wisely?
Those are great questions. I certainly think that the standards for placing an American on an assassination list need to be extraordinarily high. Obviously, citizens on American soil must be excluded. Moreover, it must be basically impossible to apprehend the citizen and bring him to justice. Finally, as you note, there must be some mechanism for double-checking the evidence, to ensure that it is truly overwhelming.
"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II
-
Originally Posted by cm husker
I think Obama provided the information about his role in a recent interview.
Do anyone think whoever makes the "final call" should need to publish as much information as possible to justify assassination, especially of a US citizen? If not, how does society check that power and ensure it's deployed wisely?
Used to be that was why the power to declare war was vested solely with the legislative branch... then the War Powers Resolution gave the executive branch a two month window, then the rise of private military corporations and CIA-operated drones has made it easier for the executive to unilaterally execute military action because technically they aren't mobilizing the military. All to keep the executive from pursuing a grudge or a horrible miscalculation.
I do think we're going to end up having to rein this thing in at some point. The suggestion in the column isn't necessarily a bad idea as long as it doesn't anonymize the process to diffuse blame when something goes horribly wrong. For the time being, as long as the President is personally involved and willing to take the fall if he ends up ordering a strike on an elementary school or something, this isn't really a hair-on-fire emergency that we need to fix by the end of the week.
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
-
I think the executive branch has way too much power with or without these assassinations.
When you think about it, isn't it just a newer version of the Old West "Wanted" posters, just a bit more secretive? Dead or alive...
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
I think it is a good idea to have a tribunal of some kind review the evidence before Americans living on foreign soil can be placed on a list for assassination, provided that confidentiality of the evidence can be strictly maintained. The Fifth Amendment provides that no citizen can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and I believe that needs to be adhered to even when the citizen has become a terrorist or a traitor.
Serious question...but what if that citizen renounces his/her citizenship? Does/should becoming an enemy combatant and killing other American citizens constitute renouncing citizenship?
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
Yes on reasonable review for American citizens put on the list. No on restrictions for non-Americans. He is the commander in chief. And like it or not, this is a war.
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
Those are great questions. I certainly think that the standards for placing an American on an assassination list need to be extraordinarily high. Obviously, citizens on American soil must be excluded. Moreover, it must be basically impossible to apprehend the citizen and bring him to justice. Finally, as you note, there must be some mechanism for double-checking the evidence, to ensure that it is truly overwhelming.
Very good points, Chi, totally agree that something like that should probably be put in place. Having said that, while there are MANY things I criticize Obama about, his handling of the war on terror and those he's chosen to assassinate as part of it have been well-executed and I completely support him.
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Serious question...but what if that citizen renounces his/her citizenship? Does/should becoming an enemy combatant and killing other American citizens constitute renouncing citizenship?
Good question. I'd say, that since the citizen didn't specifically renounce his citizenship, that renouncing it in their name should probably require similar review to the assassinations, per Chi's note.
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Guest
-
Originally Posted by cm husker
That was awesome! 
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
|
|
Reply With Quote
