Let's Talk Kill Lists
Fred Cole ·
June 12, 2012 at 3:18pm
So the story is out there. Kill lists. Baseball cards. The President making the final decision on dropping bombs on people, some of them American citizens, often in civilian neighborhoods, in countries we are not officially at war with, on his own authority.
Is this something you're okay with?
- Comment (72)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Let's ask the question that nobody in the media seems to have asked:
There's a huge fuss in Afghanistan because a U.S. drone strike killed an al Qaeda terrorist. Who was at a wedding--meaning that 18 others were killed as well.
We now know from the New York Times that President Obama (after consulting the writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) personally ordered the hit. And we know, again from the New York Times, that the "rule" is that if you're in the presence of a terrorist, you must be a terrorist too. (This is how they claim that there has been no "collateral damage.")
So did Obama personally order the hit?
May '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
How much oversight is the "kill authorization" subject too?
Sep '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Am I "okay" with extra-judicial killing?
Sometimes the best way to consider a position like this is to look at it in a different context. And in this case, you don't have to go very far to find a different context. Somali pirates began by seizing ships in the Gulf of Aden--they now range across the Indian Ocean seizing more than a hundred vessels each year. They typically seize a vessel, sail it into Somalia, take the crew off and hold them hostage, and demand a ransom.
Sometimes the ransom is paid. Sometimes the victims are killed. It is literal piracy on the high seas.
There's no government to speak of in most of Somalia. Could an international coalition locate a pirate camp, and raid it? Or drop a few Hellfire missiles into the 'ville to alter the risk/reward ratio?
Or should any suspected pirate be treated as a criminal--with the right to habeus corpus, the right to trial, and the presumption of innocence?
The historical answer is, "no." (The current Law of the Sea Treaty is a joke on the subject--yet another reason to oppose it. But that's a different question.)
Sep '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
According to the New York Times, none.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
No.
May '12
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
I give consideration to the fact that the commander in chief may have to make a decision to kill a non citizen enemy combatant (I fully acknowledge the system for determining that status is inherently flawed) given the unconventional attacks and tactics employed by terrorist organizations.
Under no circumstance do I support killing, imprisoning, etc. a U.S. citizen either here or abroad without full due process of public courts, even if they are tried in absence. That process must remain sacrosanct even if it does make us marginally less secure.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
All arguments aside that support the power of the office, this is just a little too Dictatorial.
Oct '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Enough with the hand wringing over "American citizens" being targeted. Anwar Al-Awlaki was an enemy. He was at war with the United States. We had every right to kill him. I fully support the President's right to order our armed forces to kill our enemies. Next you'll be condemning Abraham Lincoln.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Albert, the CIA is also killing people with drones. That is not warfare in any conventional sense of the word.
May '12
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Al Awlaki was a confessed terrorist and thus a horrible example for those of us in the don't kill American citizens camp - you are correct. I have no problem with him being dead. I am concerned about who determined it.
I am concerned that it would be just as easy for the same clandestine group to be trading baseball cards with Albert, Brent, or King Prawn on them.
We are a country of laws, not opinions. My opinion is that the only good place for Al Awlaki is under the crosshairs of a hell fire missile, but the law says he he should have been tried in a court of law before a jury of his peers whether he elected to surrender and show up or not.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Against. Apart from the cowardice of never having to face one's enemies, of having no "skin in the game," there's the damage done to our ability to gather intelligence. There again, though, Obama has painted himself into a corner with his false piety about "torture" as a means of interrogation. He simply has no way outside of criminal prosecution of dealing with living breathing bad guys.
But the picture of the American president sitting down with his trading cards and filling out his kill brackets is so tin-pot dictator cartoonish, it takes my breath away. I find it hard to believe that anyone other than the most totalitarian-tempted hard-core leftist isn't appalled by it.
Don't get me wrong. I've got a family relation who is a "targeting specialist" (God bless him) and I suspect most of these thugs deserve to meet their Maker. I just think there have been long established protocols which don't involve the president putting his feet up on the desk, cigarette dangling from his lips (does he smoke in the Oval?), while casually perusing a list of who he might like to knock off this week.
Oct '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
BrentB67
We are a country of laws, not opinions. My opinion is that the only good place for Al Awlaki is under the crosshairs of a hell fire missile, but the law says he he should have been tried in a court of law before a jury of his peers whether he elected to surrender and show up or not. · 21 minutes ago
I don't think that's what the law says. If you take up arms against the United States, you are fair game.
This is where John Yoo should step in with the detailed anlysis;-)
May '12
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Albert you are probably correct and I have no problem with your statement that if someone takes up arms agains the USA they are fair game.
My concern is who and how the taking up arms decision is being made. I am a single veteran openly supporting conservative candidates in political races and possess a CHL and regularly exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
According to the DHS I may fit the profile of a domestic terrorist. Is my name on a baseball card? If I elect to exercise my rights by virtue of a state issued CHL have I taken up arms? In a public court I am confident nobody in their right mind thinks so. In the bowels of the federal government - I am not so sure.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Hard not to take notice of the soaring hypocrisy of a president who based his campaign on the premise that enemy "combatants" were constitutionally protected and entitled to the protection of habeas corpus under GWB now making unilateral execution activity against the same folks.
Obama Delenda Est!
Jul '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
This is a very important point, as is the notion that Obama is personally picking targets in defiance of established military protocol, and with the participation of his political advisors (Mr. Axelrod was mentioned in this connection).
1. When DoD does it, in accordance with established procedure and protocols and review, it may be a lawful act of war.
2. When the CIA does it, in accordance with established procedure and protocols and review, it may be a sanctioned act of assassination.
3. When a President bypasses all of the above, with or without the advice of his political staff, without proper consideration and review, he is using his authority to place our government's operatives on the same moral footing as the IRA, or the KGB. Hitting a wedding sounds like something I would expect to see in the Godfather.
The laws of war have always applied to all combatants, regardless of citizenship and nationality. Beyond that, I will not rise in defense of this president's conduct of any war.
Apr '12
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Ian with raycon because Obama did blast at McCann for being a warmonger and I believe this is one of the reasons his voting public are disappointed. Does Obama really sit and do this because it is weird. Easy for the Military to manipulate him. Why would Obama think thus was a good image to put out there? If Bush had said this, the media would have torn him down, surely?
Nov '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Okay, so those of you who are against it, will you have a problem with it when Mitt Romney does the same thing starting in Jan 2013?
Dec '10
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
What's your question, Fred? Are you asking if we object to drone strikes generally, or if we object to the president picking the targets? For the record, I object to the latter, not the former (under constraints).
I remember the first time I heard of a drone strike it was a terrorist in Yemen(?) in a car with his compatriots out in the desert. According to the report, the grease spot produced by the strike consisted only of the bad guys and no innocent bystanders. And since it occurred under Bush, I'm pretty sure the press would have delighted in reporting otherwise, if it had been the case. If all subsequent strikes had been carried out in this way, I'd consider them to be a judicious use of our superior military power.
But that's the point. It requires a CinC with a constrained vision and a press willing to scrutinize his every move. Obama fails both of these tests, and Romney may fail at one of them.
May '12
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
The constitution doesn't change with who is in the oval office. We are a nation of laws constraining government's reach and guaranteeing the rights of citizens. If Romney targets U.S. citizens he will lose my support.
Nov '11
Re: Let's Talk Kill Lists
Pretty sure Ron Paul has already done that.