Quantcast

Can the US President Order Killings at Will?

Tasine 2012/05/31 16:22:29
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The article
by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Can the President of the United States order individuals, including Americans, killed on his say-so only?

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in the New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world – and some of his killers have killed Americans.

We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own – and not the military after congressional authorization – to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn’t want to talk about this, but he doesn’t deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod – the president’s campaign manager – has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?

Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers’ arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obamas-secret-kill-list/

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • beach bum 2012/06/01 05:09:30
    Yes
    beach bum
    +2
    yes, and they won't tell us about it at all
  • Sav 2012/06/01 04:35:13
    Other (Please leave a comment)
    Sav
    is there any better we can expect
  • Adam 2012/06/01 01:45:37
    Yes
    Adam
    +2
    But not legally. What do you expect from the person destined to be the next Hitler.
  • BritPunk Adam 2012/06/03 10:37:37
    BritPunk
    Godwins Law!!
  • Tasine BritPunk 2012/06/03 12:38:52
    Tasine
    +1
    Godwin's Law is designed to stifle free speech. Same as calling people "racist" for not liking a policy, or "homophobe" if you don't believe homosexuality is normal or acceptable. That's also the purpose of the term "hate speech", of the term "hate crimes". All have one purpose - shut up the opposition.
  • BritPunk Tasine 2012/06/03 12:46:47
    BritPunk
    As is the indiscriminate use of words like Nazi and calling the opposition Hitler. Hello Pot, here's Kettle :-)
  • Tasine BritPunk 2012/06/03 13:54:01
    Tasine
    I like the word "indiscriminate". It is a good deflector word, just like "racist" and "homophobe", used to stifle speech one doesn't like, even if it is NOT indiscriminate.
  • BritPunk Tasine 2012/06/03 14:00:42
    BritPunk
    People in glass houses, old bean :-)
  • Adam BritPunk 2012/06/04 01:41:52
    Adam
    +1
    No when you truly believe that Obama will do the things Hitler did.
  • redhorse29 2012/05/31 23:56:44
    No
    redhorse29
    +1
    The president may be able to focus and remove enemy combatant leaders but regular US citizens protesting or actively working against the government legally are not legal targets. Sometimes enemy combatants or leaders are ex-patriot Americans.If they are in a designated combat zone they are fair game.
  • Larry777 2012/05/31 23:08:07
    No
    Larry777
    +2
    The Military and CIA or whatever agency involved determines it. The president can't have whoever he wants killed. Also, the military and continental congress also have to agree on this for a massive attack. Obama is completely insane and now if you speak out, you might end up killed by the CIA.
  • BrianD3 Larry777 2012/06/01 10:26:21
    BrianD3
    +1
    yep, anyone can be deemed an enemy of the state
  • OneOfTheAmericanPeople 2012/05/31 22:25:15
    Yes
    OneOfTheAmericanPeople
    +3
    He's not the president he's the Kenyan King of American Destruction!
  • M A 2012/05/31 22:04:23
    Other (Please leave a comment)
    M A
    +2
    This one does
  • Maci 2012/05/31 21:55:03 (edited)
  • Cal 2012/05/31 21:54:55
    No
    Cal
    +2
    Unconstitutional and illegal by everything our nation stands for.
  • Tinka123 2012/05/31 21:41:35
    No
    Tinka123
    +2
    The Constitution grants the president no such power, nor does it grant the president the power to commit acts of war.
  • WGN 2012/05/31 21:11:59 (edited)
    Yes
    WGN
    Yes, but is it legal?

    One can order lots of things, and some may get done and some may not.

    The question should be: Can he legally order people killed?
    The second part of this is can the CIA "terminate" people without the President's consent and the answer has to be a YES.
    If the President does know about it, has he given tacit consent without actually saying anything.
    If a President orders a bombing raid to take out a tyrant, does that count?
  • Tasine WGN 2012/05/31 21:19:50
    Tasine
    I suppose you speak of Bush. Problem is he DID take it to Congress and he got approval. At that time he was off the hook. Obama doesn't want to bother with the other 2 branches of government.
  • apachehellfire65 2012/05/31 20:41:21
    No
    apachehellfire65
    +2
    legally no! but this is where the CIA comes in.
  • Tasine apacheh... 2012/05/31 21:21:43
    Tasine
    +1
    If he cannot order it legally, then having the CIA to do it is the same as ordering a hit man. If it is illegal for the President, it is certainly illegal for the CIA. Of course, no matter who orders it and who does the hit, the realities will be hidden for lifetimes to come.
  • apacheh... Tasine 2012/05/31 21:36:49
    apachehellfire65
    +1
    now you got it.
  • AL 2012/05/31 20:33:48
    No
    AL
    +2
    Not if he has any respect for our own Constitution he can't!
  • john Kills 2012/05/31 20:08:55
    Other (Please leave a comment)
    john Kills
    +2
    It isn't a question of if he can because he's already proven he can and has. It's not legal for him to attack Americans but we deserve whatever hell he dishes out as long as we sit around on our asses letting him. We can stop it but that would require people to turn off their tvs and get off their asses and actually do something.
  • WGN john Kills 2012/05/31 21:16:04
    WGN
    If you are referring only to Obama, get real. Every President has done so, especially the conservative ones who claim to be protecting the Constitution by breaking (or circumventing) it.
  • Tasine WGN 2012/05/31 21:23:22
    Tasine
    +1
    I really would like to hear examples of conservative ones.............
    I can't even NAME a conservative Republican and there are no conservative Democrats any more.
  • WGN Tasine 2012/06/01 11:53:18 (edited)
    WGN
    If I remember correctly, Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 in 1981/1982 which banned political assassinations, BUT before the 1984 presidential election, news broke that the CIA (under the direct control of Reagan) had financed, produced, and distributed an assassination manual for the Nicaraguan Contras fighting the Marxist Sandinista government. The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” (i.e., kill) government officials.
    The Nicaraguan Contras were advised to lead "demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the Government to create even bigger conflicts."
    This of course was in violation of his Constitutional powers, but Reagan did what he wanted through his subordinates.
    Nor did the ban on assassinations prevent the Reagan administration from dropping bombs on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's home in 1986.
    So, even though he said he was against such actions, he was doing them in
    secret.
    Also, under the Bush sponsored "Military Commissions Act of 2006" (since declared unconstitutional), the President has the power to declare anyone (citizen or non citizen) to be an enemy combatant and therefore order his/her death by assassination.
  • Tasine WGN 2012/06/01 13:25:57
    Tasine
    I'll give you credit for naming at least ONE conservative Republican - Ronald Reagan who will be seen by historians as one of the greats. Bush will be too unless the left writes all the history.
  • WGN Tasine 2012/06/01 15:13:50
    WGN
    No, he was seen by conservatives as one of the greatest, but in reality, he was probably the worst because of the LONG TERM effects of conservative economic policies that work only for the wealthy and only short term for the rest.
    In time, his legacy will not be as one of the greats because of trickle down economics, tax cuts, NAFTA (a Reagan idea that Bush pushed during the next administration and was passed by congress in early 1993), outsourcing (buying cheaper parts and charging the same price for what is made with them while putting American workers out of work), union busting, increasing the number of people living at or below the poverty level, cutting of social programs, and the destruction of the middle class, all of which has basically led to the Recession that we are in now.
    He was a one hit wonder, and that hit was only for the wealthy.
  • Tasine WGN 2012/06/01 15:56:54 (edited)
    Tasine
    I see you are a Keynesian - that is the way Keynes was taught, but it seems to always fail. It stresses the manipulation of economics via government control. The primary thing I want to avoid is GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF ANYTHING. I've never seen government to succeed at anything it has attempted except the destruction of the country it is governing. I'm wealthy by no means and am relatively intelligent, and I've not been hurt in any way except my taxes that are stolen from my wallet.......until Clinton then Obama came along. Now my freedoms are eroding faster than I can count.
  • WGN Tasine 2012/06/01 18:09:58 (edited)
    WGN
    Name one personal freedom that you have lost. I have asked this of all the conservatives here, and have yet to receive an answer.
    Sorry, but it is the idea of a wealthy elite that is the base cause of every depression and recession in this country, and every recession and depression have all come from conservative economic policies. In the long run, a high top tax rate has stimulated the economy more than tax cuts.
    The growth in real GDP under Reagan was nothing compared with the GDP under Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. Those top tax rates were 70% and above.

    rates

    rateb
  • Tasine WGN 2012/06/01 19:10:05
    Tasine
    I have lost the freedom to choose any beautician I want because the state says all must be licensed.

    I have lost the freedom to purchase raw milk because the feds say I cannot.

    I have lost the freedom of privacy . The government keeps track on me better than they do with cows with mad cow disease.

    I have lost much of my freedom of speech due to liberal whining and lying about whites and conservatives. To shut up those whiners and buy some votes, politicians decided to prohibit hate speech - making it criminal. I cannot even talk with minorities the same way I talk with other whites because ANY complaint is immediately labeled hate speech or racist (same animal).

    I have lost the freedom of having the wind blow in my hair as I ride my bike - laws say I must wear a helmet.

    I have lost the freedom to talk on my cell phone while driving because of a few accidents and the safety police demanded a law that forced all people to quit driving and holding cell phone.

    I have lost the freedom to have the toilet of my choice even though I pay for it.

    I have lost the freedom to keep the money I have earned - am required under threat of prison to "give" government money to support the non-working in the nation.

    I have lost the freedom to drive responsibly, instead must drive according to law.

    I have...









    I have lost the freedom to choose any beautician I want because the state says all must be licensed.

    I have lost the freedom to purchase raw milk because the feds say I cannot.

    I have lost the freedom of privacy . The government keeps track on me better than they do with cows with mad cow disease.

    I have lost much of my freedom of speech due to liberal whining and lying about whites and conservatives. To shut up those whiners and buy some votes, politicians decided to prohibit hate speech - making it criminal. I cannot even talk with minorities the same way I talk with other whites because ANY complaint is immediately labeled hate speech or racist (same animal).

    I have lost the freedom of having the wind blow in my hair as I ride my bike - laws say I must wear a helmet.

    I have lost the freedom to talk on my cell phone while driving because of a few accidents and the safety police demanded a law that forced all people to quit driving and holding cell phone.

    I have lost the freedom to have the toilet of my choice even though I pay for it.

    I have lost the freedom to keep the money I have earned - am required under threat of prison to "give" government money to support the non-working in the nation.

    I have lost the freedom to drive responsibly, instead must drive according to law.

    I have lost the freedom to buy a new car without headrests because the government demands head rests.

    I cannot pay anyone for advice who doesn't have a license because licenses bring in so much to government. In reality most are totally meaningless.

    I cannot drive my car without a license AND a safety sticker in some states.

    I, as well as you, lose freedoms with EVERY bill passed by Congress and with every decision made by a department head, a bureau head, or an agency head - these are not laws, but they are allowed to use FORCE to enforce them. Everything that is backed up by law is a loss of freedom.

    We currently have about 3000 POUNDS of laws in the National Archives, with more being added each and every year/ These idiots in congress can think up all sorts of silly and inane laws, but cannot and will not balance a budget. The democrats won't even stoop to write one any more.

    You probably don't notice that we are awfully close to the same atmosphere Russia suffered under for so long. We aren't there yet, but we're running as fast as we can toward it.
    (more)
  • WGN Tasine 2012/06/02 19:33:13
    WGN
    Wow, how self centered and egotistical can one be.

    You want your rights so you can infringe on the safety of everyone else. What ever happened to living in a democracy where the MAJORITY rules?, or are you forgetting that part of the Constitution.

    1. You can choose any unlicensed beautician you want. It is their rights that they have lost, not yours.

    2. You can still get raw milk, go to the pasture and milk a cow.

    3. Stay off the grid. You are choosing to live within society, and that is a right- you could go somewhere else- you still have that freedom.

    4. You can start your own newspaper and print what you want as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

    5. Ride you bike on your own property.

    6. get a hands free cell phone that is voice activated.

    7. Go out back and dig a hole.

    8. Your money that goes to taxes, which is perfectly legal, is spent on many other things, almost all of which do not go the the non working. Unemployment insurance pays for most of that and the spending is decided on by YOUR representative, who is elected by you, so stop your whining.

    9. That is just self gratification taken to a new height.
    Grow up. You can drive any way you want, and by your post, it is a sure thing that you will kill yourself or someone else, depriving them of their right to lif...



    Wow, how self centered and egotistical can one be.

    You want your rights so you can infringe on the safety of everyone else. What ever happened to living in a democracy where the MAJORITY rules?, or are you forgetting that part of the Constitution.

    1. You can choose any unlicensed beautician you want. It is their rights that they have lost, not yours.

    2. You can still get raw milk, go to the pasture and milk a cow.

    3. Stay off the grid. You are choosing to live within society, and that is a right- you could go somewhere else- you still have that freedom.

    4. You can start your own newspaper and print what you want as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

    5. Ride you bike on your own property.

    6. get a hands free cell phone that is voice activated.

    7. Go out back and dig a hole.

    8. Your money that goes to taxes, which is perfectly legal, is spent on many other things, almost all of which do not go the the non working. Unemployment insurance pays for most of that and the spending is decided on by YOUR representative, who is elected by you, so stop your whining.

    9. That is just self gratification taken to a new height.
    Grow up. You can drive any way you want, and by your post, it is a sure thing that you will kill yourself or someone else, depriving them of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    I had thought that I had heard it all, but your post is the most self centered, uncaring, conservative piece of crap that has come down the pike in a long while.

    That you posted it, and probably believe that what you claim as "your" rights are actually legitimate, just puts you in a whole new class of immaturity when it comes to understanding anything about what country you actually live in. it is like talking to a two year old- me, me, me!
    (more)
  • Striker Tasine 2012/06/02 20:09:57
    Striker
    +1
    Why are you even BOTHERING with that person? He's not interested in Liberty, he wants Force, and believes that's "legal". He thinks the Constitution set up a democracy, and majority rules and f... everyone else. He believes that Rulers are supposed to make your decisions. When the chips come down, he will be your enemy, and it will come down to him, or you. Guaranteed that his "greater good" is superior to your right to life.
  • Tasine Striker 2012/06/03 00:16:30
    Tasine
    +1
    I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Oh, well, it was worth the try. One thing about progs - they NEVER surprise anyone. LOL
  • Wulfdane 2012/05/31 20:01:27 (edited)
    Other (Please leave a comment)
    Wulfdane
    +2
    As long as the Presisent is not ordering a political assassination (which would violate EO 11905/12333) or executing US citizens and persons on US soil without a fair trial (unconstitutional), then it is likely the Preisdent does have that power.

    It is interesting watching hypocritical Liberals in action, when they accused Bush of murder when he authorized similar actions.
  • Richard Hungwell AKA Relent... 2012/05/31 20:00:21
    Yes
    Richard Hungwell AKA Relentless
    The legality of it may be questionable, but i'm sure he could just sign another executive order to make it legal,

    Either way, he is the president of the US. Yes he can surely get someone killed if he wants.
  • Tasine Richard... 2012/05/31 20:04:09
    Tasine
    Do you believe all Americans are equal under the LAW?
  • rose 2012/05/31 19:31:56
    Other (Please leave a comment)
    rose
    +1
    Anyone can kill at will. You just can not be a coward.
  • Tasine rose 2012/05/31 20:04:47
    Tasine
    LOL! So, so true! Never thought of it that way!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/24 21:47:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals