Could the POTUS legally order your assassination

[tblue]

If he believes something you post or say incites terrorism or violence against its citizens or its "interests" (wink wink)?

Are Halluburton, Wall Street, Tar Sands pipeline, for example, our "interests"?

[FreakinDJ]

1. slow down smoking that stuff dude

[Capitalocracy]

27. If you don't think this is a serious question

then you don't know how the world works. The U.S. has initiated military coups and supported dictatorships that do exactly this sort of thing, torturing and killing their own citizens for being the type of people who would post on DU, for decades. Why is it so far-fetched to think those policies might come home?

[provis99]

29. I think you're the one who needs to get off the blunts.

Are you really that naive?

[ixion]

2. yes, thanks to the Bush Doctrine

which tossed the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta out into the trash in favor of neo-barbaric jingoism.

[teddy51]

3. It would seem that way, according to many on DU and I don't see anything

to stop him at this point. You kill one US citizen without Due Process, anyone is fair game.

[Unvanguard]

4. If I am outside US territory actively planning terrorist attacks against the US, yes.

Just like any other combatant. :shrug:

[Vincardog]

8. What proof do we have of those accusations?

[Unvanguard]

14. What proof is ordinarily presented to you when the US government kills someone in a war?

Wartime, not criminal law, is the relevant context for this decision. That is what most of its critics miss.

[Vincardog]

15. What war is it of which you speak?

[Unvanguard]

21. The war al Qaeda declared on us several years ago and we've been fighting ever since. n/t

[Vincardog]

30. "al Qaed" isn't that the same "data base" that OBL created of volunteers to help him, when we (the

CIA) were funneling him MILLIONS to fight the Russians? How do you have a "WAR" with a list of people?

[Angry Dragon]

17. What country are we at war with??

[Unvanguard]

22. Who said anything about "country"? n/t

[Angry Dragon]

24. How do you declare a war on a group or people??

A lot of people are being killed that we did not declare war on
Does that make us terrorists??

[Unvanguard]

26. What difference does it make?

Aren't countries in a sense also just "a group"?

[Angry Dragon]

28. Way to really stretch there

I really think a country is a country and a group is not a country
The republicans are a terrorist group, are they a country?? I think not

In 1953 the CIA with government approval toppled a duly elected democratic country
to help out an oil corporation owned by a foreign country
They installed a torturing dictator
After so many years the people finally said enough and took their country back
Since then the US has meddled in the affairs of the Middle-East
The people are finally pissed enough to fight back
We call these people terrorists but in essence they are just fighting for the freedom
to determine their own destiny
We used to call these people Patriots back in 1776
Not all the people are fighting this country but it seems we really do not care
because we kill innocent civilians every day and all this does is create more Patriots

This country kills, maims, try to destroy countries every day and get pissed off if someone tries to do the same to us
seems a little miss guided in the thought process

[tblue]

35. I'm not saying that wasn't a bad man

but I'm sure he believed he had a legitimate gripe. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Scuba]

19. But that's the rub. We should have engaged terrorists as criminals, not a military force. n/t

[MNBrewer]

10. There is nothing in the AUMF (which is Obama's legal fig leaf in this circumstance)

that restricts such killings outside US territory.

Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[Unvanguard]

13. It's not really a distinction of principle.

More a pragmatic one: when arrest does not present large logistical difficulties, it's probably the better option in most circumstances.

[SixthSense]

5. who is the 'spiritual leader'

of the Wall St. occupation?

[Vincardog]

6. No but he could ILLEGALLY legally order your assassination and not one of "OUR" elected "leaders"

would stand up for us

[Major Nikon]

7. I'm a big fan of leaving anti-intellectualism to the freepers

YMMV.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Or the CIA could order it and he goes along with it. Same result.

[Hydra]

11. Rec to 0

Apparently you hit a nerve.

And apparently they can indeed order your assassination, and the same 75% of America that believed Saddam was involved with 9/11 will cheer, because the Gov't never lies to us, right?

[kenny blankenship]

12. If no one puts him on trial, then it was all nice and legal. Bush&co are still free, aren't they?

And so are the heads of the five families -JP Morgan, Citi, BOA, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs- as are the capos of the ratings agencies, which together with the banks destroyed our economy in a vast pyramid of fraud.

Getting away with it is what makes something legal. You should know that. If the POTUS orders your assassination, who's going to stop him? You can't even ask to see the President's evidence, much less contest the legality of the order. He ordered it, no one can stop him or dares to put him on trial, ergo it is the most legal thing that ever happened. If in fact they even acknowledge that it happened. Who's to say that the President must acknowledge such actions every time they happen? Just because they did this time, doesn't make you the Boss of the President that you can say he has to announce every little killing he orders in the future. Know your place.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Sure, we can trust the CIA with it's long record of accuracy and humanitiarian deeds.

[MilesColtrane]

18. Not legally, but that won't matter until the AUMF as justification for...

extrajudicial killings is overturned as unconstitutional by the judiciary.

[krabigirl]

20. Yes. It may not seem that way now, but this is as slippery slope. Imagine how it may be in 10-20 yrs

Cause we will still be "at war" over there I am sure.

[MineralMan]

23. Sure. That seems really, really likely, too...

I'd stop posting on line, if I were you...you know...just in case. :rofl:

[tblue]

34. I know!

Really. It's scary. I am serious.

[Better Believe It]

25. Sure. Why not? We have to defend the homeland against terriorists, pinkos and other radicals.

[pipi_k]

31. It's a little more complicated than that...

If a person spends years planning the mass murders of his own countrymen, and goes to the trouble of enlisting the aid of others to help him, that's not quite the same as "posting or saying something" that allegedly incites violence.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not making plans to murder other people, nor am I enlisting the aid of others to do it for me.

There are over 300 million people in this country. I do not delude myself into believing I'm important enough to attract anyone's attention for much of anything, let alone alleged acts of "terrorism".

[tblue]

33. If he commits a crime, prosecute him. But ASSASSINATE?!

Who made those accusations you described? The ones who had him killed. And you trust them. Really?

Who decides whether there was a crime? And by what authority? Problem is this is all under the radar. There was no judge and/or jury and no due process. And that, last I checked, was THE LAW.

If it can happen to anyone it can happen to you.

[pipi_k]

36. Well you must be right...

I mean, why would our government be telling us all these years about certain AQ figures who have done this or that, then turn around and assassinate them other than because...

well...just because. No reason. Just because.


No. I don't always trust the government.

But I don't always trust anonymous people on the internet making claims about government plots, either.

I'll tell you what's sort of amusing, in a pathetic sort of way...

We're told certain things about certain people, and because it's the government, people think it's all lies.

If the government were to come forward tomorrow with the most outrageous lies about W, and Dick Cheney, and just about everyone involved in that administration, a whole LOT of people here would believe it without question.

As far as executing Al Alwaki, I really don't care.

Plus, as I pointed out to the OP, what Al Alwaki did was a bit more heinous than just someone spouting off some stupid shit on Facebook or an internet discussion group. The FBI isn't going to be happy about it, but unless someone is actively consorting with people in an effort to kill hundreds/thousands of people, I don't think the ordinary bigmouth is going to be assassinated.

[ThomWV]

32. No, the POTUS can not legally order the assassination of anyone, even in time of war.

Even in time of war our treaties limit our legal actions and we may not single out anyone for execution except after trial where the conviction was obtained by due process. The President has no authority what so ever to order the execution of anyone, let alone a naturally born US Citizen. That is not to say that the General can not be killed. If we bomb the headquarters and it kills the General that's OK. But if we send out an execution squad to slaughter the General, that's not OK.