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.

**Grakmar**

LordofHats wrote:Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.

Well, war needs to actually be declared by congress. Congress hasn't done that, so we're not at war.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:Yes, because someone actually suggested this. Perhaps lets try arguing what was actually said instead of erecting enormous strawmen and then whaling on them.

That's not a strawman at all. The point of the statement is that "the US can't kill citizens without a trial" is not a valid argument. The US has done it since day 1 (Whiskey Rebellion), did it again and en masse in the Civil War, and on a regular basis whenever the immediate danger of letting someone live warrants their death.

I'm also pointing out the absurdity of demanding due process every time a citizen proses an immediate danger to other citizens. Especially when its impractical to actually exercise due process at all.

LordofHats wrote:No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.

Its relevant because the Army doesn't load streets down to the residential areas of a military base with armed soldiers and vehicles and have engines audible from a mile away at a nearby airbase so it can go on a dandy stroll. It also doesn't deploy divisions to play cloak and danger with the Afghanis (nor does it start calling up the NG). To claim the fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is "not a war" is absurd.

Well, war needs to actually be declared by congress. Congress hasn't done that, so we're not at war.

Police Action/War... Funny how those rhetorical devices work out. You know, being invented so the President can engage in war without Congressional permission.

**Easy E**

I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

**SoloFalcon1138**

d-usa wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

If a US citizen takes up arms against the government by allying himself with another government,I believe they are to be considered as renoucing their citizenship.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

Don't worry. You're not that important.

**LordofHats**

Easy E wrote:II'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

No one does. But you're not engaged in violent actions against the US government and its citizens (I assume

) and hiding in a foreign state, and assuming that the US government wants to kill that guy therefore they might someday kill you is an irrational fear. Al-Awlaki (Finally remembered his name!) did a lot more than say things the administration didn't like.

**mattyrm**

Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

Oh come off it. As if you would end up on the death list because you said something that wasn't popular!

You get killed if you do really serious gak.

How about I cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue?

The same people that are slating Obama over this no doubt fething love it when he gets some Pakistani/Egyptian/Osama Bin Laden and blows the fether up. Indeed, several million Americans embarrassed themselves by going into the street and and hooting and hollering about Bin Laden getting killed. Like they were at a God damn magic show. I bet most of them were ultra right, tea party types as well.

You know I'm right, your not going to see liberals and Greenpeace activists cheering peoples death in the street like they just won the superbowl are you? The guy deserved it sure, Im glad the fether got ventilated, but I wouldn't go and dance in the street like I was at a tailgate party, it just makes you look like you have the mental age of a schoolboy.

Anyway, only one thing determines if you deserve to get slotted or blown up, and that's if your a horrible mother fether or not. Why on earth should the accident of your geographic location at birth have anything to do with it?

I mean, really? Why should it?

If you are a slimy terrorist mother fether who is happy to blow the gak out of innocent people, then I say you deserve to get your legs separated from your arse via the medium of high explosive. feth em. I don't care if they are born in Iran or Illinois.

You know for a fact that people dont get green lit for assassination unless it really does serve. Find me a teenage American who gets killed for making a "Obama is a gak president" website, and Ill change my mind, but you know for a fact It wouldnt happen, so why pretend things are otherwise?

Seriously.. an American on a kill list because he said something the "current" president didn't like. You don't even believe that yourself do you? So why say it?

**Jihadin**

No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.

82nd is a short notice deployment division. We can have boots on ground in under 8 hrs. In fact a brigade of troops with everything it needs to fight a war in 8 hrs.....10 hrs...we have to clear the runway to land the following on units.(2/82 AVN an example) SO basically everyone on Ft Bragg..82nd and 18th ABN Corp were quite itching to take on a nation for 9/11. Also I'm sure everybody and Gawd knows that civilians do not lead military units into combat. POTUS gives go order and we go under military command structure.

**Kilkrazy**

Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

Do you think that is more likely to happen now than 10 years ago?

**Jihadin**

Only time I'm sure we see drone attacks in the US is the citizens go up in arms and atempt to overthrow the duly elected gov't. Which better not happen because I be called back into military service which would really pissed me off

**Easy E**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

Do you think that is more likely to happen now than 10 years ago?

In the old days, they at least tried to pretend it didn't happen, so would have to go through the effort of a cover-up and plausible deniability.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:I'm going to cut all the crap and get to the root of the issue/problem.

I'm a U.S. citizen and I don't particularly relish the idea that I could be put on some "Kill List" just because what I say isn't popular with the current President, whoever that current President is.

Don't worry. You're not that important.

Yet. And neither was Anwar Al-Maliki.

**Jihadin**

Well....speaking your mind or inciting a riot through speech are two different things. One would land you in jail

**Ahtman**

Easy E wrote:Yet. And neither was Anwar Al-Maliki.

Quoth the Raven, bs.

**Frazzled**

indeed was was the pr guy and major player in a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of US citizens. You're what again?

Lets be clear who we're talking about:

Anwar al-Aulaqi (also spelled al-Awlaki; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American[8] and Yemeni imam who was an engineer and educator by training.[9][10] According to U.S. government officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][6][11][12][13][14][15] With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet",[16][17] though Bin Laden himself reportedly held Aulaqi in low esteem.[18] Many of his videos have subsequently been removed from YouTube after a request from the US Congress.[19]

U.S. officials say that Al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[20] accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[21][22] and "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[23][24][25] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack. The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[26][27]

According to U.S. officials, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31] In April 2010, American President Obama authorized al-Aulaqi's targeted killing.[32][33][34] The targeted killing of an American citizen was an unprecedented Presidential order which al-Aulaqi's father and civil rights groups unsuccessfully challenged in court.[32][34][35] Officials stated that the "imminent threat" international legal standard is used to add names to the C.I.A.'s list of targets.[33]

Al-Aulaqi was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him,[36] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[37] before he was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[38] Two weeks later Al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[39][40][41] Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, made an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[42]

**Jihadin**

Anwar Awalakimanut is the one everyone refering to...including the one that people are saying "I don't know his name" right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Anwar influence the Major to kill his fellow soldiers at Ft Hood clinic incase some forgot

**Lynata**

lol, since when are drone strikes Obama's invention?

In contrast, the CIA’s drone program in the tribal areas of Pakistan utilizes weaponized UAVs primarily in hunter-killer missions. This program, begun under the George W. Bush Administration as part of the GWOT, uses drones primarily in “search and destroy” missions aimed at terrorism suspects and Taliban leadership in Pakistan. One important difference between the two programs is that while the military program operates exclusively in recognized combat zones, the CIA program flies drones over civilian areas as well.

--http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144

Oh, I forgot, it's election time soon. The Truth Distortion Committee is hard at work again.

**Grakmar**

Lynata wrote:lol, since when are drone strikes Obama's invention?

In contrast, the CIA’s drone program in the tribal areas of Pakistan utilizes weaponized UAVs primarily in hunter-killer missions. This program, begun under the George W. Bush Administration as part of the GWOT, uses drones primarily in “search and destroy” missions aimed at terrorism suspects and Taliban leadership in Pakistan. One important difference between the two programs is that while the military program operates exclusively in recognized combat zones, the CIA program flies drones over civilian areas as well.

--http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144

Oh, I forgot, it's election time soon. The Truth Distortion Committee is hard at work again.

To be fair, conservatives and moderates are pretty much totally okay with Obama using drones to kill enemy combatants (even if they are US Citizens). It's only the far left that has a problem with it.

**Ouze**

I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.

**Frazzled**

I think anyone who thinks he does have a blank check is not right in the head.

**Easy E**

Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there. The only concrete thing I see is that he had a blog, Facebook page, and YouTube videos. He called for Jihad and violence against the US in these venues. (Is that any different than calling for violent revolution against the government? How about succession from the Union?)

So basically, he said a lot of things that the US/President didn't like. Some other people listened to him and did things that were violent. Therefore, he must be killed. That makes perfect sense... in a revenge thriller by Tom Clancy.

However, whether you like the speech or not, he was still a US citizen. Granted, I'm no lawyer, and possibly don't "get it"; but killing him does not sit well with me. Call me old-fashioned. Johnny Walker "American Taliban" Lind got a trial, so should Al-Maliki.

I'm a US citizen. I could have a FaceBook page, Youtube page, and blog. I could say things about the US/President that they did not like. Other people could act on those things violently. I Icould now be blown up by a Hellfire missile on a Drone by the President.

Is it likely? No. Should it be possible? No.

I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?

**Frazzled**

You mean he managed an Al Qaeda FB page.

We can't have a conversation when you make such statements. Thats like saying the only info you have that Goebbels (yea I went there) was a bad guy are some radio blogs he had.

**Ouze**

FFS, guys, we determined the guys name was Anwar al-Awlaki back on the first page. I often think some of you guys don't really read or think about what you're responding to, especially with this weird " Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns" type jingoistic posts for the last page here, but the facts so many of you have failed to grasp such a simple and elementary fact really nails that home to me.

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.

Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.

**mattyrm**

Easy E wrote:
I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?

Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?

If the powers that be decide that someone presents a clear threat, I dont care if he is from England or Egypt, they can wax the mother fether.

I could respect your opinion if you were a pacifist and dont agree with killing ANYONE, but I doubt you are.

If you would happily sign off on killing a fething Iranian or a Turk or a Jordanian for the exact same gak, then who gives a gak where the guy happens to have been born? Your deeds condemn you, not the geographic accident that happened to have spawned you in North America.

It's good when scum get ventilated, who cares where they happen to have been dropped off by Mom?

**Ouze**

Ahtman wrote:
Ouze wrote:I think anyone who thinks about the fact the President has a blank check to kill American citizens without any meaningful oversight should have a problem with it.

Sure, though I don't think it is quite that simple. There is a process in place and the President can't just throw the paperboy's name on a Kill or Capture list because he hasn't been delivering on time through Presidential fiat. It certainly could use more transparency, to be sure. I think we should have a better understanding of how the list is generated. I understand that they can't release all the evidence used to come to the decision, but they can at least talk about the committees and standards that the names pass through to determine if they make such a distinguished list.

Yes, this is reasonable.

I accept that there could be a situation where there is an imminent thread to the United States, one that requires lethal force to resolve, even against an American citizen. I also accept that, at least with Anwar al-Awlaki, there was a AUMF that sort of kind of authorized it. My concern is that now that this precedent has been set, just like with all government powers in the history of ever it's now going to be abused to situations that the AUMF doesn't cover. Ultimately it shouldn't just be, in my opinion, the POTUS and a few guys he appointed who make that call. There has to be some kind of check on that power by another branch, or ideally, both other branches.

**Melissia**

Shh, they're busy bashing Obama, no logic will stop them.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I'm interested to know why he DOESN'T have a blank check to kill American citizens?

Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?

If the powers that be decide that someone presents a clear threat, I dont care if he is from England or Egypt, they can wax the mother fether.

I could respect your opinion if you were a pacifist and dont agree with killing ANYONE, but I doubt you are.

If you would happily sign off on killing a fething Iranian or a Turk or a Jordanian for the exact same gak, then who gives a gak where the guy happens to have been born? Your deeds condemn you, not the geographic accident that happened to have spawned you in North America.

It's good when scum get ventilated, who cares where they happen to have been dropped off by Mom?

Well, US citizens have certain rights is what he's getting at. I think he's trying (and failing) to get to is to compare this step in similar fashion to Latin American dictatorships, where opponents of the government get wacked or generally disappeared. That is a concern. However, wacking US nationals actively on site with the enemy and publicly involved with such - thats completely different.

So, if we managed to get a bead on Tokyo Rose, and knew she was in fact a US citizen, the OP wouldn't want the shot to be made?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Shh, they're busy bashing Obama, no logic will stop them.

Who is, rabid lefties?

**Melissia**

Also conservatives jumping on the bandwagon to bash Obama for it.

I read lots of weird things on the Economist's comments sections. Like claiming that Obama somehow caused the LIBOR scandal.

**Ouze**

mattyrm wrote: Again, why the obsession with where the target happens to be born?

Speaking only for myself, this thread is sort of a logic game, where we're arguing over what is legal under US law (and should be), so where the target was born is hugely important within that framework.

Morally, you're right though. It shouldn't make a difference.

**Ahtman**

Easy E wrote:Wow, I see a lot of allegedly and according to U.S. Officials in there.

Of course it is allegedly, he never had a civil trial in the US. Damnedest thing, he never would show up for court even with all the invitations that were sent. If he had shown up and demanded a trial we would have given him one. Instead he chose to hide out in the mountains in a foreign country and be the mouthpiece of a terrorist organization. He raised funds for terrorists and explicitly encouraged people to kill other people. We couldn't bring him in but we couldn't allow him to go on being a terrorist leader. Sucks about his kid, but then when you are a known and hunted terrorist leader and you keep your family around you, that has a way of happening. In a perfect world we would have been able to capture and bring him to trial, but the reality of the logistics of such an event made it impossible. He did have the trial in Yemen where he was found guilty and sentenced, so it wasn't 'allegedly' there.