The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Source:

Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812#ixzz20MhDGbFi

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Questions raised in the article:

**Kid_Kyoto**

I totally agree. I'm very upset how, with no debate, both parties have embraced assassination as an acceptable tool of policy.

**Frazzled**

Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

Until they target Wienerdogs, then you will regret doing nothing

.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

Until they target Wienerdogs, then you will regret doing nothing .

True dat. The wiener legions are mean.[u]

**Kid_Kyoto**

Frazzled wrote:Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

And beats the use of atomics or chemical weapons.

Is that the best we can do these days?

**pretre**

Wow, being on the same side as frazzled. I feel dirty.

**Clthomps**

Meh, A group of college kids just remotely took over a drone for a $1000 dollar bet.....

I am pretty sure in a year or two everyone with access to the internet is going to have there own flying killing machine...

Might as well take advantage of out advanced technology while it last.

**Jihadin**

Rather have a drone take them out then go up and down mountains looking for them and their associates. So if we encounter another american taliban bearing arms against us and opting him out to the next world. I will not shed a tear nor regret killing an american after the fact. You pick up a weapon and start shooting at us then expect to get shot back. Drones make it simpler...cleaner (for my troops and I..no sweat, dirt, and grime)...and worrisome for the enemy. Foreign or domestic I don't care as long as its a lawful kill order.

**Huffy**

Jihadin wrote: a lawful kill order.

I think that is what is in question here. Especially the dangerous precedent it sets for other nations using the same technology to similar ends.

**LordofHats**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I totally agree. I'm very upset how, with no debate, both parties have embraced assassination as an acceptable tool of policy.

The practical ends of killing one man/woman verses the mass slaughter of thousands I think is a worthwhile trade off (assuming that's the actual end, which is a naive assumption to make probably).

But then I shirk most moral questions with the response "Who

cares"

**Jihadin**

Can say the drones are a corperate slimming down for the Al Queda/Taliban/Insurgents...how many number 2's they've gone through now? 6?

**Aerethan**

I'd rather they snipe off enemies than blow up cities.

I have no moral objection to assassination in the name of national defense, as long as they make movies about it.

**GalacticDefender**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

Until they target Wienerdogs, then you will regret doing nothing .

True dat. The wiener legions are mean.[u]

Then they came for the wiener dogs, but I was not a wiener dog so I did not speak out.

**d-usa**

Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.

**Aerethan**

d-usa wrote:Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.

Well the kids in his high school should have been nicer to him. Let that be a lesson to you all.

**Jihadin**

Foreign and domestic...domestic include US citizens that baer arms against the US. No different if we were to kill a US citizen in combat fighting with the enemy.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.

It happens fairly regularly. Like that gang banger who pulled a gun on the cops, or the guy who held up that bank. Sometimes the government can kill people without trial. Aiding terrorist organizations probably counts.

At least I assume you'r talking bout that guy we had put on the kill list cause he was actively supporting Al-Qaeda. Have there been others?

**d-usa**

So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

**ShumaGorath**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I totally agree. I'm very upset how, with no debate, both parties have embraced assassination as an acceptable tool of policy.

It was an acceptable tool in the 70s and 80s and most people don't even know where Laos is, let alone anything about the CIA proxy conflicts surrounding Vietnam. This is just business as usual. The CIA freedom of operation granted in the 70's changed the dynamic of American conflict policy. At least the drone programs target "actual criminals", rather than locales or support networks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

Are you talking about Anwar? If so his rap sheet was a bit longer than that.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

Yep. Its baffling isn't it?

**ShumaGorath**

LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

Yep. Its baffling isn't it?

Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.

**Luco**

I do not see this going to any place good. It is plenty different if you start blowing up homes in the states, eliminating competitors for office, people who believe in freedom of speech and say too much...

**d-usa**

And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.

Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.

**Ouze**

I don't really have a problem with the use of targeted assassinations against foreign nationals - I think there are ample legal basis for doing this, such as the AUMF; and the fact the no-assasination rule was by executive order, so the executive can override that with another - I think the killing of US citizens is probably the worst thing the Obama administration has done.

I don't really have a good answer for what to do about an Anwar al-Awlaki type situation, but I don't think what we chose to do was the right thing either. The POTUS is not a king and American citizens have a right to due process that he cannot sign away.

**Kovnik Obama**

d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

Talking and preaching can lead to an awfull lot of murders, rape, and wanton violence. It's basically what coups d'États are made off, at first.

Anyhow, I'm a bit surprised with the outrage. I figured that if it wasn't the President, it would be some Smoking Man, or some top military brass.

**d-usa**

ShumaGorath wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

Yep. Its baffling isn't it?

Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.

There is an article in the OP, has names in it.

Underwear bomber is foreign national who got better treatment than a citizen of this great nation. 16 year old citizen gets killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong day, but that is okay too.

**ShumaGorath**

d-usa wrote:And Anwar was still a citizen who has never faced trial.

Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.

The guy had a direct connection to three terrorist plots, one enacted and two failed. He inspired through the "preaching" you're talking about five others. He fled from the united states and would not turn himself in. This isn't a particularly strong moral highground your taking, the dude was responsible for deaths and his day to day routine was spent attempting to become responsible for more of them.

**LordofHats**

ShumaGorath wrote:Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.

If his name is Anwar its him. I don't remember his name XD.

But then I thought that civil trials for terrorists was stupid, so that I'm for killing him without trial regardless of citizenship isn't that inconsistent.

Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.

Sure we can. Its called having your cake and eating it too

And of course that's assuming the moral high ground matters for anything.

**ShumaGorath**

LordofHats wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you guys just making gak up or does this person have a name? When you want to use someones death to justify some sort of antigovernmental angst it's polite to actually state what your stating.

If his name is Anwar its him. I don't remember his name XD.

But then I thought that civil trials for terrorists was stupid, so that I'm for killing him without trial regardless of citizenship isn't that inconsistent.

Out country cannot take the moral high ground when we decide that we don't have to follow the constitution anymore.

Sure we can. Its called having your cake and eating it too

And of course that's assuming the moral high ground matters for anything.

The constitution isn't an inherently moral document. It's a social contract. It's amoral.