It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Panetta : Obama decides who is a terrorist and if they should be killed

page: 1
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
If you still support that BS because it's your precious Obama, remember that Romney/Gingrich will get that power.

Panetta: Decision to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism Is Obama's

In an interview with CBS 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta revealed more about the secret process the Obama administration uses to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without trial. According to Panetta, the president himself approves the decision based on recommendations from top national security officials.

"[The] President of the United States, obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification and in the end says, go or no go," Panetta said.

"So it’s the requirement of the administration under the current legal understanding is that the president has to make that declaration, not you?" Pelley asked. Panetta replied, "That is correct."

The process by which national security officials determine whether or not American citizens suspected of terrorism can be killed remains opaque.

And notice, it's only ``suspected`` of terrorism. No trial, no proof, nothing. Obama just decides who is and isn't.

Forget the NDAA, this is worse.

Obama needs to be impeached right now, Panetta too and all those powers REMOVED RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.

This the kind of powers a TYRANT HAS.

All this started with Bush now Obama put it into law.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



+6 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You mean King Obama decides who he doesnt like and who gets killed, yea that seems fair


Boy they really are crapping on the Constitution aren't they? You know why because they know people will not resist because we do not want to lose our minimum wage jobs and unable to feed ourselves, we don't want our record tainted because our slave masters would ban us from permanently getting a job. This is why the revolt must be all at once and full force.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Ah yes Obama the Dictator , He's already appointed himself Judge, Jury, Executioner.
The POTUS has finally reached their goals, and we thought the Russians were scary before.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Whose decision should it be? I mean... the president is the top dog. The buck stops there. I think it's only right that he make the decision.

If our country is going to kill people without trial, then the one who signed it into law should be the one with blood on his hands, IMO.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Jesus man.
What`s the matter with America ?
They`ve had months to get out on the streets and protest against this tyranny.

The Germans left it too late...........
Haven`t we learned anything ?


+6 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Whose decision should it be? I mean... the president is the top dog. The buck stops there. I think it's only right that he make the decision.

If our country is going to kill people without trial, then the one who signed it into law should be the one with blood on his hands, IMO.


It shouldn't happen at ALL.

It isn't right that HE makes that decision. No one should.

Our country should not kill people without a trial by judge and jury, he should have never signed that bill into law.

Yet, you somehow manage to make this rational? It's ok, since he signed it into law, that he is the one with blood on his hands?

Are you for real?

Seriously?

How do you look in the mirror?

edit on 31-1-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I think i can see the connection.
The most powerful nation is the most fearful nation in the world.
If this is true then God knows where are the Americans heading to...
I was taught in my school that America was established on the pillars of liberty and freedom.
Am i wrong???



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Whose decision should it be? I mean... the president is the top dog. The buck stops there. I think it's only right that he make the decision.

If our country is going to kill people without trial, then the one who signed it into law should be the one with blood on his hands, IMO.
Then he should actually get the blood on his hands.

Let him go out and pull the hits, if this is the way we are going to go about it.
edit on 31-1-2012 by butcherguy because: Removed superflous 'then'.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Whose decision should it be? I mean... the president is the top dog. The buck stops there. I think it's only right that he make the decision.

If our country is going to kill people without trial, then the one who signed it into law should be the one with blood on his hands, IMO.


The decision to sentence someone to death should be made by a jury of their peers after a fair and open trial in which the accused was found guilty of a capitol crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Separation of powers dictates that this is the realm of the judicial branch of government, not the legislative or executive. The President isn't the top dog, the Constitution is. Or that's the way it should be, anyway.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I wish I had the certainty that some of you displayed, but I am confused again.

In combat, the infantryman decides who lives and dies, there's no trial. The President decided to kill Bin Laden (For the sake of argument, I'm accepting the official story.) No trial here, either. Policemen kill without trial first.

All of these seem to be based on some kind of self-defense doctrine. Is that what the President is claiming here? If so, why isn't it valid?

Not trying to stir up controversy, just being confused.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Are you serious?? You know how the government are a bunch of incompetent or just crooked when it comes to ``identifying terrorists``.

Their latest ``terrorists`` :
'I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe': British pair arrested in U.S. on terror

Do you think these people would have deserved to be killed if Obama decided so?

No man should have power to kill anyone because he thinks so. That's something the worst of the worst only wants... people like Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, etc... now the US president got it.

These powers must be taken away IMMEDIATELY.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




If our country is going to kill people without trial, then the one who signed it into law should be the one with blood on his hands, IMO.


he already has blood on his hands by signing this law into effect.

look what we´re bickering over people!

wether or not the president should have the final say in this, it does NOT matter.

this ´law´ shouldn´t even exist in the first place



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Double O - Bama.
Licensed to Kill




Seriously folks, think about it. You (BH) may be okay with Obama having this "power" but would you feel the same way if it were Gingrich?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I wish I had the certainty that some of you displayed, but I am confused again.

In combat, the infantryman decides who lives and dies, there's no trial. The President decided to kill Bin Laden (For the sake of argument, I'm accepting the official story.) No trial here, either. Policemen kill without trial first.

All of these seem to be based on some kind of self-defense doctrine. Is that what the President is claiming here? If so, why isn't it valid?

Not trying to stir up controversy, just being confused.


It is more in relation to the following story:

www.cbsnews.com...


Al-Awlaki played a "significant operational role" in plotting and inspiring attacks on the United States, U.S. officials said Friday, as they disclosed detailed intelligence to justify the killing of a U.S. citizen.


But then the scope has been broadened by the US claiming that the long list of people that they now consider terrorists to include:

Pro-lifer
You pay for items with cash
refuse or argue about showing ID when buying items
Actually believe you have Constitutional Rights
buy food for storage in preparation for disaster
buy goods from Army/Navy Surplus stores

Here is a link to the PDF put out by the OathKeepers published by the FBI

oathkeepers.org...

In other words, HE can order any of us detained indefinitely or killed, without trial or probable cause. Just 'cause HE says so.

And some people try to rationalize that this is okey dokey, because Obama is just SO dreamy!

edit on 31-1-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2012 by Libertygal because: typo



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
everytime i read a thread like this it instantly reminds me of his campaign..

- Change we can believe in!
- Change that works for you!
- Yes we can!
- You can take that to the bank!

urgh..

how we've been duped again..

i think i speak for a lot of people here when i say:




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Yeah this would be scary even if Newt Romney had to make these decisions, they would be going on maximum overkill mode. Seriously Ron Paul would be the only sane person who wouldn't abuse powers on a made up enemy. This should be something to think about really carefully if you want to re-elect Obama or have Newt Romney as the next POTUS. Good thread Vitchilo



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Point being, I think *anyone* else would repeal this... garbage.

I don't think any rational, yes I mean rational, person, actually thinks this is ok at ALL. I think it will be repealed by the next president that is not Obama, regardless of who it is.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The part Panetta is NOT telling you??

This authority for the President do decide who is a terrorist and can kill you was started with the Bush Administration. They created the legal frame work in order to do such a thing. Obama used it.

Today, Obama says he will never use the powers of the NDAA..... I actually believe him. I don't think he will. Just like Bush didnt kill American Citizens. That does not mean it wont ever be used by someone who holds the Office later. This is why these laws and acts must be repealed. No one person should EVER have this power.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I know NO ONE should be able to make these decisions, but we are in this mess waist deep already. Especially when you still have the Obamaholics running around out there you can only hope those people finally wake up, and take this clown out of office before its too late.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Ugh! I never said I agreed with it or that I supported it. I just said that IF we're going to be killing people, then the guy at the top should make the tough decision and live with the consequences.

And this isn't about the NDAA. This is about the Awlaki killing last year. And this secret presidential process was used by Bush as well. Obama didn't invent it.

Of course, you all got crazy on me with assumptions about my position, so I really don't have anything more to say here. I can't help it you make these assumptions and go off the deep end.



new topics




 
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join