Who is Obama Permitted to Order Killed?

Serious question:

As POTUS which of the over 6 billion people on planet earth does Obama have the legal authority to order killed?

It depends who you ask - under international law, no-one.

Under the US military's rules of engagement, enemy combatants.

In the harsh reality of day, anyone who is deemed as a threat to national security.

Originally posted by ExCommando
It depends who you ask - under international law, no-one.

Under the US military's rules of engagement, enemy combatants.

In the harsh reality of day, anyone who is deemed as a threat to national security.

Yes, and keep in mind that that list of threats is growing all the time. Pretty much includes anyone who questions the government right now, including anyone who doubts that he has that right and power....

Under US law, the president, like everyone else is bound by the laws of the US. However, the president, unlike the rest of us, enjoys the protection of executive privilege. Under the executive privilege, the president cannot be liable for acts he commits while carrying out the office of presidency.

So the ultimate question is not who the president can kill someone, but under what circumstances does the executive privilege allow the president to kill someone without the president having any legal liability. I think it is safe to say ordering the killing of Bin Laden clearly falls under the scope of the president's duties, so he is not liable. Of course the waters get muddier if the president is ordering the killing of others.

Originally posted by MindF
Serious question:

As POTUS which of the over 6 billion people on planet earth does Obama have the legal authority to order killed?

edit on 3-5-2011 by MindF because: edit

Since when has legal authority stopped a POTUS from doing whatever they hell they want? Don't piss him off or you could end up on his list!

Great answers, thank you!!

So where does the Executive Privilege come from? A Federal law passed by Congress? Surely it's not a Constitutional privilege, right?

Originally posted by MindF
As POTUS which of the over 6 billion people on planet earth does Obama have the legal authority to order killed?

“[T]he 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.”

Obama’s orders, from a US law perspective, are legitimate and authorized by something called an AUMF, Authorization for Use of Military Force, statutory authorization given by Congress. Specifically the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, passed by Congress on September 18 2001.

Originally posted by ExCommando
It depends who you ask - under international law, no-one.

This is, of course, completely untrue. Under international law, every belligerent, on the battlefield, can be targeted.

Under international law, however, the battlefield has a narrow meaning, while those conducting US foreign policy and military operations seem to believe there are no boundaries to what can be considered a battlefield.

The current u.s policy is ANYONE who opposes the state in any manner. No trial required.

Originally posted by MindF
So where does the Executive Privilege come from? A Federal law passed by Congress? Surely it's not a Constitutional privilege, right?

Executive privilege has been inferred from the separation of powers doctrine. Presidents have, since the beginning of our constitutional republic, asserted and invoked this privilege several times.

The Supreme Court has, on occasion, addressed the question of executive privilege, and doing so, somewhat defined the circumstances in which the privilege can be invoked.

Executive privilege, however, has little to do with the power to order the use of military force. Executive privilege consists, primarily, of the right to withhold information or communications, or even to resist certain interventions by the other branches of government.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Under the executive privilege, the president cannot be liable for acts he commits while carrying out the office of presidency.

Just to clarify this a bit. I believe hotpinkurinalmint is confusing executive privilege with executive immunity here, but it’s understandable since the two often intersect.

Executive immunity is the immunity from personal liability for acts, by government officers, done in the course of their official duties and capacities. It shields them from being sued for damages.

Government officers, in general, have, what is called, qualified immunity. Their immunity depends, broadly, on two conditions: (1) their conduct didn’t clearly violate established law and (2) a reasonable person would have believed the conduct in question was lawful.

The President, in contrast, has absolute immunity from civil suits.

Is this another "Bash Obama for killing bin Ladin" thread? This better not be.