[Pops]

The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.

I'm feeling more secure all the time.

[Ludi]

Yep, absolutely corrupted.

The pile of garbage is looking almost identical to the shit sandwich.

[gollum]

Yep, absolutely corrupted.

The pile of garbage is looking almost identical to the shit sandwich.

Yup... the one party state at work!

[americandream]

Quite logical in the circumstances and given whats at stake.

[PrestonSturges]

Overseas, right? Not Beck's domestic squads. Not the hit squads that were supposedly killing all the women Bill Clinton slept with.

[anador]

I think they have had this unspoken power for time immemorial.... and they have exercised it from time to time.

I don't know whats scarier, Obama in my living room with a machete.... or the federal government telling the truth.

[Pops]

I think they have had this unspoken power for time immemorial.... and they have exercised it from time to time.

Yea, I'm sure you're right.

I don't know whats scarier, Obama in my living room with a machete.... or the federal government telling the truth.

Even righter - yeah, we did it and we'll do it again.

[deMolay]

Wait until they have you all disarmed, and see how openly they dispense their JUSTUS.

[mos6507]

This is for the purpose of going after "American taliban" ex-patriots who set up shop and launch attacks. One way or another, there needs to be a way of dealing with these people. You're not going to go there and read them their miranda rights. I would just go ahead and revoke their citizenship first.

[Keith_McClary]

I would just go ahead and revoke their citizenship first.

Do murder laws say anything about citizenship?

[eastbay]

Quite logical in the circumstances and given whats at stake.

Agree. I couldn't imagine a healthy and sane people NOT granting this authority.

[Oakley]

Obama and Bush have one thing in common; they are both sociopaths.

Anyone who can carry out unjustified wars like Iraq and Afghanistan with the thousands of innocent deaths resulting is just plain and simple evil.

This is not national defense; this is barbarism. And since when can police deliberately assassinate criminals?

[mos6507]

Obama and Bush have one thing in common; they are both sociopaths.

Well, one of those "sociopaths" has a Nobel peace prize.

Anyone who can carry out unjustified wars like Iraq and Afghanistan with the thousands of innocent deaths resulting is just plain and simple evil.

There were a lot of innocent deaths in WWII as well. Kinda goes with the territory. It doesn't mean it's the intention of the US to murder innocent people, unlike, let's say, the Taliban, whom you seem not to be interested in scolding. The usual double-standard of focusing all your moral outrage on the US and not who we're fighting.

since when can police deliberately assassinate criminals?

They aren't "criminals". They are traitors, and I don't use that word casually. Someone who sets up shop off-county for the clearly stated purpose of waging war on the US is no longer entitled to the rights of citizenship. They are a bona-fide military target.

[Plantagenet]

Someone who sets up shop off-county for the clearly stated purpose of waging war on the US is no longer entitled to the rights of citizenship. They are a bona-fide military target.

That seems logical, but leftists, liberals and democrats have argued for years that Al Qaida members are entitled to Miranda rights and trials in open court with free legal representation and all the civil rights that defendents typically get.

It must be confusing for our anti-terrorist people...how do they decide when to give Al Qaida members their Miranda warning and allow them to call a lawyer before questioning them as opposed to considering them a military target that they can "wage war" against and kill?

[Cid_Yama]

The authority the government is claiming is not as broad as the article or the ACLU is claiming.

The legal argument is that a US citizen who actively engages in a war against the US, is not entitled to due process of law to be killed.

It would be the same as if, during WWII an American went to Europe and fought on the side of the Nazis. He would not be entitled to due process as he would be an enemy combatant.

The suit, brought by the father of a known terrorist directly connected to an act of terror against the US (the underwear bomber), is engaging in a battle of semantics. Would you consider special operations units targeting a Nazi General during WWII, as engaging in an execution without due process of law?

Authorization for these types of actions was authorized by Congress during the Bush Administration and the "hit list" was initiated by Vice President Cheney.

The government is obligated to defend the actions of past administrations in the court system, as such a suit is against the government, and although the players change, the government remains the same.

[Cid_Yama]

This is part of the a much broader issue, the changing nature of war.

In prior decades, war was primarily between states, one nation against another.

Now we are faced non-state combatants. They do not belong to nor are guided by the government of some nation.

These groups are independent multinational entities, much like multinational corporations.

No state governs them and there is no global government to have overriding jurisdiction over them.

There are no "nations" to retaliate against for their actions.

I can understand the feeling of impotence the Bush Administration must have felt in the face of 9/11. With the American people demanding retaliation and no nation to declare war against, the Bush Administration acted 'as if' there were nations responsible. They just picked a couple in the Middle East they were already wanting to take action against and blamed them.

The problem was the changed nature of war in the 21st century.

Nationalism is dead. The concept of independent states is dead. When states are restricted to actions within their own borders, and prohibited from acting within another's borders, yet attacks are launched from outside their borders, mutiple independent states becomes an obsolete notion that cannot survive.

Just look at the problems we have from our inability to regulate multinational corporations.

It appears one world government with overriding jurisdiction is inevitable. But will be fought against tooth-and-nail by those who benefit from the lack of one.

[Plantagenet]

It appears one world government with overriding jurisdiction is inevitable.

Why do you think so?

Isn't it more likely that as oil runs out and energy costs explode and modern society begins to struggle to provide enough food, shelter and rap music to keep the people satisfied, that national governments will weaken and political and economic power will become more decentralized and localized rather then more centralized and globalized?

[americandream]

We already live in a global ponzi scheme. These terrorists are invariably hangovers from the Cold War or the largely impotent elements of a hierarchical privilege that now finds itself marginalised in the age of full commodification.

[rangerone314]

Hypothetically, what checks and balances would prevent Obama or any other President of either party from having, say John Boehner or any other political opponent killed? Answer: only the conscience of the person asked to do the killing.

History has shown that it is easy to find people with no conscience at all to do killing.

I don't give a rat's ass about due process for al-qaida people... if you have a nail you need to hit it with a hammer, but I'd just as soon not give a hammer to a psychopath and get whacked with it.

[Plantagenet]

These terrorists are invariably hangovers from the Cold War...

The Islamic terrorists of 2010 are not motivated by the "cold war" that ended two decades earlier.