Are there any limits on President Obama's license to kill

reply to post by Aggie Man



the successor of prince shrub


and in response to op's question
the answer is yes those limits that we the people [both collectivly and as individuals] choose to set

S&F

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
2012 campaign... Who is this??

"We will kill anyone we want at anytime with no penalty"

HMMMMMM

Hitler, Nope

Barrack Obama...

Hopefully this is the work of the FORMER president of the USA and not the re-elected president of the USA!!!!

What an idiot....hopefully everyone else sees Obama as negatively as I do...

Oh did you forget that Corporations can now donate as much as they want to a candidacies war chest? Obama will be re-elected cause he is their Messiah. I hope he doesn't but people like Ron Paul don't stand a chance if we even make it that far without Obama taking total control.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there was maybe 2 people in this thread who even actually read the article and the other links with that same article.

The OP is misleading this thread and so are the following comments. The main person in the article was US born and is now in Yemen as a member of Al Qaeda. From the OP and the follow up posts you people are making it sound like they are just assassinating random people they choose off the streets. They are targeting a known terrorist who has attempted bombings and other such plans. Not John Q public.

The author is also writing the article in a way that twists the facts in his favor. Hooray for journalism.

Originally posted by Vanishr
Sh*t bro this is big news, there admitting they feel they have the *right* to kill citizens at anytime, what if a citizen was to fight back and kill all the *PIGS* trying to MURDER him, would he then be sentenced to death for murder ? or arrested for murder ? obviously the attempted murderers are all exempt, because thats what the *LAW* states. If i was in the US i would be booby trapping my house and my property intensely, Getting your guns locked & loaded, & be prepared to defend yourself. Start beefing up your home to be like a fortress & starting to get self sufficient, its only a matter of time before they try to *arrest* or *exterminate* YOU !

Grow up cockjockey, when some drugged up dribbling retard invades your house, and you are impotent to intervene, because you have a fire arm but not the first damn clue how it works, the "pigs" will be the one's your worthless ass will be begging to help

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

As part of its war against violent extremism, the Obama administration now claims a right to kill Americans without a trial, without notice, and without any chance for targets to legally object

I guess this explain all the swat team kill of innocent civilians like marine Jose Guerena. How many people have died under this provision. If this is true than this country is now under the rule of a dictatorial president. The people of this country should not wait for their representatives to act, since their representative are in the same boat with the president, in addition to them approving the legislation giving him the power. Under the constitution the people have the right to overthrow the government, and that's what they should do.

www.csmonito r.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is true. The President has given himself the right to kill US citizens as described in the article above - all in the name of protecting US citizens, of course.

The US has done this abroad, ie. killed foreign citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc, for decades - killing without licence is what the US Corporation does best. Obama has just taken it one step further. I guess that levels out the playing field a bit, at least.

reply to post by presstotalk


Let me guess, you're a cop yourself?

Those are the only people I ever see using that "reasoning."

Just for the record I've been robbed before and didn't call the cops. I've also been in lots of fender-benders where both parties decided not to notify police or insurance. The fact is that a lot of the time it's more trouble than it's worth to get the pigs to come out, because then they feel inclined to start handing out tickets and handcuffs like candy and beating people down no matter who called or for what. Then maybe they'll shoot your dog and steal all the money in your wallet on top of that. It wouldn't surprise me a damned bit anymore.

Originally posted by presstotalk

Originally posted by Vanishr
Sh*t bro this is big news, there admitting they feel they have the *right* to kill citizens at anytime, what if a citizen was to fight back and kill all the *PIGS* trying to MURDER him, would he then be sentenced to death for murder ? or arrested for murder ? obviously the attempted murderers are all exempt, because thats what the *LAW* states. If i was in the US i would be booby trapping my house and my property intensely, Getting your guns locked & loaded, & be prepared to defend yourself. Start beefing up your home to be like a fortress & starting to get self sufficient, its only a matter of time before they try to *arrest* or *exterminate* YOU !

Grow up cockjockey, when some drugged up dribbling retard invades your house, and you are impotent to intervene, because you have a fire arm but not the first damn clue how it works, the "pigs" will be the one's your worthless ass will be begging to help

edit on 23-5-2011 by presstotalk because: (no reason given)

Wow. I shudder to hink what kind of mind generated such a hate filled, bitter, resentful, violent response.

The Christian Science Monitor is a bit late to the party. I covered this issue in the premiere episode of The Truth Is Viral for ATS TWO WEEKS AGO.

Originally posted by OldCorp
The Christian Science Monitor is a bit late to the party. I covered this issue in the premiere episode of The Truth Is Viral for ATS TWO WEEKS AGO.

(click to open player in new window)

Actually you "Reported" half of the story. If you had "Covered" it, it would not have been biased.

Originally posted by IPILYA
Actually you "Reported" half of the story. If you had "Covered" it, it would not have been biased.

OK. So in your opinion, which side did I leave out?

this has been around for quite awhile

in a number of different threads here on ats

and each thread they all go pretty much like this one

people condemn it and people defend it.

the facts are obama has killed anyone he wanted to

the facts are obama will continue to kill anyone deemed a terrorist.

the compariosn to hitler was a bullseye.

What I don't understand is that everyone seems to be ignoring the big fat elephant in the room: Since when does the President have the right to just up and KILL anyone? ANYONE? WTF?

You all seem to be missing the point. The govt are supposed to be the SERVANTS of the PEOPLE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Where does King Oreo (I like that one, may I use it?) get his power from? It says it right in the Constitution, from the CONSENT of the people. No govt official has the right in any way, shape, or form, to kill anyone, unless they are tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. That is called murder, on the planet I come from.

And everyone says it is just some citizen who defected to Yemen, and is fighting for Al CIAda. But that's how it starts, Don't any of you get it? Remember the old saying, first they came for the Gypsies, and I said nothing, because I am not a Gypsy. Then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing, for I am not a Jew. Etc, etc. and then when they came for me, there was no one left to say anything. Or something like that.

If you stupidly give them your CONSENT to do things like this, well, then, you asked for it. Who says who it is ok to kill and who it is not ok to kill? YOU? I don't think so. So when they decide that your wife and children need to be killed on no evidence, what are you going to say then? You can't say anything, you gave them your CONSENT. To KILL. This is called murder on my planet. You all seem to think it is somehow ok on this planet. I'm sure this is how Pol Pot started out too....

Originally posted by zarlaan
The OP is misleading this thread and so are the following comments. The main person in the article was US born and is now in Yemen as a member of Al Qaeda. From the OP and the follow up posts you people are making it sound like they are just assassinating random people they choose off the streets. They are targeting a known terrorist who has attempted bombings and other such plans. Not John Q public.

You are right that the Obama administration has defended this position in regards to al-Awlaki, not to the American people in general, but it’s not a lawful position regardless.

If al-Awlaki is on the battlefield and fighting US forces then we can kill him, and his citizenship, or any other factors, are irrelevant.

But we’re talking about someone, from what I know, that has not personally engaged in any combat, is not in a country where US forces are waging war — at least in the traditional sense — and has ‘simply’ advocated and encouraged others to use violence against the United States and US forces.

If the government believes this person to be dangerous and is guilty of crimes then they have to capture him and bring him to justice. If he resists capture with force then he can legitimately be killed. But that’s not the scenario the Obama administration is defending — they have claimed they could lawfully assassinate him without even trying to capture him.

And considering the circumstances I don’t believe the US government can lawfully do that.

Christian Science Monitor as a reliable source? You've got to be kidding me as they are totally biased.

reply to post by OldCorp


First of all I want you to understand I am against it. If he were a true American Citizen it might be different, but because he has duel Citizenship the Government can ignore his American citizenship and do as they wish, unfortunately, however Obama is in direct violation of the Human Rights set by the UN, but then again so is the UN. That being said, There were no interviews with people for it or with Obama and you directed the conversations by leaving out his duel citizenship. Instead you stated..."And there we have it. It's been a day. I've spoken with a lot of people here in downtown Charlotte, not many of them were willing to come on camera and even fewer of them were willing to criticize President Obamas decision to have Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated without a trial. This reminds me of the Roman republic when everyone was clambering for a dictator, congratulations America now you have one."
Yes, you referred to the opinions that were for, but you added none to the report and by stating "not many of them were willing to come on camera and even fewer of them were willing to criticize President Obamas decision..." you denote there were some, willing to come on camera yet you left out their opinions. In my book, by the misdirection of your statements and the omission of opinions you show that you are biased.

Nope..His license are good till 2012....

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


what??

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


license to kill....lmao might as well give a monkey one....

Even if people are familiar with the events that took place in that article, I strongly recommend people read it.

It talks about how presidential power grabs have been ruled to be "judicially unreviewable" by our courts. In essence, granting the president dictatorial powers.

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by OldCorp

 

First of all I want you to understand I am against it. If he were a true American Citizen it might be different, but because he has duel Citizenship the Government can ignore his American citizenship and do as they wish, unfortunately, however Obama is in direct violation of the Human Rights set by the UN, but then again so is the UN. That being said, There were no interviews with people for it or with Obama and you directed the conversations by leaving out his duel citizenship. Instead you stated..."And there we have it. It's been a day. I've spoken with a lot of people here in downtown Charlotte, not many of them were willing to come on camera and even fewer of them were willing to criticize President Obamas decision to have Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated without a trial. This reminds me of the Roman republic when everyone was clambering for a dictator, congratulations America now you have one."
Yes, you referred to the opinions that were for, but you added none to the report and by stating "not many of them were willing to come on camera and even fewer of them were willing to criticize President Obamas decision..." you denote there were some, willing to come on camera yet you left out their opinions. In my book, by the misdirection of your statements and the omission of opinions you show that you are biased.

Maybe my phrasing was a bit unclear; for that I apologize. Allow me to clear it up for you: NONE of the people who thought Obama was doing the right thing were willing to come on camera and back up their belief - not ONE. I spoke with over a dozen people - all African American btw - who supported President Obama unconditionally; in their eyes, he can do no wrong. Perfect sheep IMO. They didn't care that a man who hadn't even been charged with a crime was targeted for assassination; allow me to rephrase THAT - They didn't give a sh**! They weren't about to criticize the first black president, no matter what he'd done.

Some people are going to say I'm racist for stating that fact - just like ANY criticism of Obama MUST have it's roots in racism - but it is a fact nevertheless. I gave Obama supporters the chance to stand behind their President, but they refused. They were either too stupid to realize the enormity of his decision, or too ashamed to admit it; but not a single one of the people who supported Obama would get on camera and say it.

Thank you for your opinion on the video. I'll try to be more accurate in my phrasing in the future. For now, for you, I hope I cleared things up.