Blogs Jun 1, 2012 at 9:41 am

Comments

1
I am so disturbed that even the New York Times blithely uses the word "assassination" as if it is perfectly okay for any American, under any circumstances, to kill someone on foreign (or domestic!) soil. I am old enough to remember the shock of the American people when we learned of our government's attempts to assassinate Castro. In some ways, the 1950s got it right -- AMERICANS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO UNILATERALLY KILL PEOPLE.
2
This kind of power is too much to be vested in a president. It should only be given to the reigning Miss America.
3
That photo in the article of the Oval Office is shocking. I've seen that wallpaper but those red drapes look strange. Also strange is a wooden bowel of apples. OK for a bed and breakfast but a crystal bowel would be more fitting.
4
I can sum it up in other two word phrases "President Bush" or "President Obama"

5
I'm against ANY President having that kind of power. Our current President is Obama. That's more worrisome.
6
So our list is a couple of dozen terrorists, their list is all americans. I'm OK with that.
7
Yeah, I wish we didn't assassinate people.

I also wish there was no prejudice or discrimination anymore. And no more religious bigotry. And everyone helped others if they needed it, with food, clothing, shelter, etc... not just friends and family, but helping people they'd never even meet. And I wish we, as humans, would work towards cooperative goals together instead of selfish ones. And I wish people would be more kind to all animals.

I'll keep hoping for all those things... but I don't expect any of them will ever actually happen in my lifetime.
8
how can this be anything but utterly, absolutely, and obviously unconstitutional, even if there were a properly declared (by congress) war against an identifiable enemy? American presidents believing they are entitled to commit war crimes... despicable; that it's a nominally "liberal" president... horrifying.

Whether or not a war on terror can be "won" at all, killing American's in this way won't add anything worthwhile to that calculation. Jeez, I miss the Warren court - they'd have this sorted out in about five minutes.
9
@7 I don't see the connection... I hope for all the things you mention, and they require behavior change by large groups over time - and I'm pessimistic. A government is designed to be better than the worst traits of the mob - that is precisely what the Framers were doing when they created this one - and elected officials ought to be, and held accountable to be, on better behavior than the hoi poloi
11
And we used to think Nixon was evil for having an "enemies list." At least he didn't kill them.
12
Well. At least heā€™s not water boarding themā€¦

Shit, if this story had come out about Bush at the end of his first term the media would have burned him in effigy as a craven, blood thirsty psychopath. Obama pretty much gets a pass. Love the fact that he has also redefined Collateral Damage to exclude any male over the age 18 so he can claim ā€œcleanerā€ kills.

Such a proud national moment. (Canā€™t wait for the Russians, North Koreans, Chinese and Iranians to get hold of a drone and adopt Obamaā€™s assassination policy.)
13
The President has always had that power, so you're about 236 years late on that.
15
yeah, meh. we already accept the fact we torture people in violation of international law then we're all gonzo for obama woo hoo cuz he stopped torture. well he didn't prosecute the torturers did he?

we're all selective in our adherence to human rights and democratic rights. I don't see anyone whining over the fact we rule over 4 million puerto ricans like a colony.

on this issue, the president has power to lead armed forces and for YEARS all us democrats have been TOTALLY OKAY without declaring wars, so it's a bit late now to say the prez can't go wage war which if I am not mistaken involves the intentional aiming of rifles at people to kill them. deliberately. the issue is really who's in the army with which we're at war, no you can't have congress or the courts supervising that level of decision making. "We now have the hearing for what villagers in alla akbar, Afghanistan, are in al queda. Representing village elder mohammed ali is attorney David Boies...." that really would not work dudes.
16
If the people on the list are actual terrorists plotting mass murders, I'd kill them myself. I prefer strategic drone strikes to those Bush era shock and awe carpet bombings of entire cities.
17
Actually, think about it: President Biden.

Now if that doesn't make you wake up, I don't know what would.
18
@13
Yea? So... I just re-read Article II of the Constitution, and Iā€™m having trouble finding the part that gives the President the power to order the execution of US Citizens. Would you please kindly point that clause out to me?
20
This kind of thing is not new at all. The only thing that is new is that with the current technology, we can find and eliminate these people without resorting to putting thousands of boots on the ground. Is it better that we send 80,000 soldiers to kill them, rather than an unmanned drone?

The only thing that is different is that Obama has asked to have personal say regarding it, instead of allowing DOD officials to do so on their own. Where was the outcry when we were doing this to terrorist leaders under Bush, or even just earlier in this presidency.

Only after a journalist called it a "kill list," was there an outcry.

We can debate the basic design of how we fight terrorism in this protean and endless war, but there is no need to pretend this is something new.
21
hey, it's not like facial recognition and transponder codes can easily be faked and used to have your enemies target the wrong person and think they got you, right?

That GPS in your cell phone? It's a tracking device, but you don't know it - every cell tower has logs that are searchable by the sniffer programs.
22
If it's a Democrat it's okay. That's why you want to make sure we never let a Republican become President ever again.

And good luck with pulling THAT off.
23
I'm sure they justify this shitty practice by saying it's either that, or conventional military intervention.

This is benevolence on the part of the Ministry of Fear and Permanent War.

This war will never end. There's too much money in it.
24
Oh yeah, much better we invade countries than quietly whack threats to us.

Oh that's right, Slog thinks the USA has no legitimate interests or threats.
25
@7, because not allowing the government to choose to kill individuals without due process is the same as achieving utopia.

All the governments in the world that don't kill individuals without due process would be surprised to hear this.

Seriously, though, what a ridiculously dishonest argument.
27
@21: Stop watching 24.
28
What Venomlash said.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.