# Obama administration arguing they can assassinate anyone without oversight **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325 "2010-09-28T05:13:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/61 "2010-09-28T21:48:14Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > So what prevents a President form deciding that a person living in the United States (even an American citizen) is a potential terrorist threat and he is ordering the military to take action, including lethal force, against them? To me, this would seem like an equivalent of a bill of attainder but I don’t believe the courts have ruled it such. > > It’s not a bill of attainder because its not an act of congress (i think, i’m sure Bricker can correct me if i’m wrong). > > The problem here is a lack of definition for the justification for these acts. A police officer can shoot someone in defense of themselves or others. But there are standards which must be applied. In this case, the standards are vague, and it;s pretty much: become president, kill anybody you want because you perceive them to be a threat to national security. And it doesn’t take 270 electors to become president. Ford became president with 0 electors. Public Law 107-40 was enacted by Congress. It didn’t have Congress directly declaring anyone a criminal but it gave the President the power to do so. So I feel it’s pretty close to a bill of attainder. As you said, the law as written pretty much gives the President a blank check. It says he can do whatever he feels is necessary (in his unchecked opinion) against anyone he feels is linked to terrorism (again in his unchecked opinion). Theoretically he could get a rifle and just start shooting random people from the windows of the Oval Office. (_“Of course they were a threat. I saw them coming right at the White House with my own eyes. And any one of them could have had a bomb.”_) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/62 "2010-09-28T22:02:55Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Can you point to the place in the law that permits one but forbids the other? > > Er, no. I can’t point to the place in the law that permits accidental collateral death in wartime. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all. > > Can you? Or even better, could we perhaps direct the debate away from your absurd comparison? How about the law that forbids deliberate, targeted attacks? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/63 "2010-09-28T22:34:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Bricker, has there been a specific court ruling that cites Public Law 107-40 and says that it does not apply within the United States? Because it doesn’t set any domestic limitation within the text of the law itself. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld doesn’t seem to have addressed that issue. Lincoln v. Davis obviously sets a precedent for Presidents ordering military operations within the United States. No, not to my knowledge. But the dicta in _Boumediene v. Bush_ is pretty convincing; the decision that habeas rights attach to the Guantanamo prisoners is because: > [@](#): > > Accordingly, for purposes of our analysis,we accept the Government’s position that Cuba, and not the United States, retains de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. As we did in Rasul, however, we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory. > [@](#): > > So what prevents a President form deciding that a person living in the United States (even an American citizen) is a potential terrorist threat and he is ordering the military to take action, including lethal force, against them? To me, this would seem like an equivalent of a bill of attainder but I don’t believe the courts have ruled it such. It’s not a bill of attainder. If you are serious about your question, I’ll provide the caselaw. But the short answer is that the Constitution’s full force of protection applies inside the United States, and not outside the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/64 "2010-09-28T22:40:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > defilade Regardless of what anybody might say about lawyers, you guys tend to have impressive vocabularies. I don’t know if I will ever have occasion in my entire life to use this word, but thanks for introducing me to it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/65 "2010-09-28T22:51:40Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The idea that they can assassinate people is reprehensible. Everybody gets a trial . Just declaring guilt is insufficient. America is going astray. Criminals get trials. People who are at war with us get shot. Perhaps you should rent a war movie. > [@gonzomax](#): > > We are making Osama Benladen a winner. Such a murderous act, as barbaric as it was, can also cause people to wake up and see a danger for what it is. And take action against it. That seems to have happened to some of us at least. Thank goodness. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/66 "2010-09-28T23:10:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > The idea that they can assassinate people is reprehensible. Everybody gets a trial . Just declaring guilt is insufficient. America is going astray. > > Criminals get trials. People who are at war with us get shot. Perhaps you should rent a war movie. No, the right-wing _wants_ it to be a war to cover up the social unrest engendered by their domestic policies and enrich their corporate buddies. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was fundamentally a criminal act. > [@](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > We are making Osama Benladen a winner. > > Such a murderous act, as barbaric as it was, can also cause people to wake up and see a danger for what it is. And take action against it. That seems to have happened to some of us at least. Thank goodness. Of course we are, **gonzo** , but they want to have that war. That’s why they will continue to exaggerate threats and foment hatred. In reality, they have the same goals as Bin Laden. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/67 "2010-09-28T23:16:49Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Of course we are, **gonzo** , but they want to have that war. That’s why they will continue to exaggerate threats and foment hatred. In reality, they have the same goals as Bin Laden. As proved by prominent right-wingers like Barack Obama? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/68 "2010-09-28T23:30:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > So what prevents a President form deciding that a person living in the United States (even an American citizen) is a potential terrorist threat and he is ordering the military to take action, including lethal force, against them? To me, this would seem like an equivalent of a bill of attainder but I don’t believe the courts have ruled it such. > > It’s not a bill of attainder. > > If you are serious about your question, I’ll provide the caselaw. But the short answer is that the Constitution’s full force of protection applies inside the United States, and not outside the United States. If you can provide caselaw to support the notion that the government need not respect the constitutional rights of American citizens simply because they’re outside of the country, I suggest you forward it to Eric Holder. He could use it. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/69 "2010-09-28T23:30:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@sleeping](#): > > > > Of course we are, **gonzo** , but they want to have that war. That’s why they will continue to exaggerate threats and foment hatred. In reality, they have the same goals as Bin Laden. > > As proved by prominent right-wingers like Barack Obama? On matters of civil liberties, foreign policy, and Presidential secrecy, Obama has thusfar been damn difficult to distinguish from prominent right-wingers. Pity they’ll never let him into the club. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/70 "2010-09-29T00:22:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not a bill of attainder. > > If you are serious about your question, I’ll provide the caselaw. But the short answer is that the Constitution’s full force of protection applies inside the United States, and not outside the United States. Generally speaking, I would welcome that. I enjoy learning about the law and discussing its nuances with you has helped me do that. But I’ll be traveling for a week or so starting tomorrow, which means my opportunities to spend time online will be limited. So maybe another time. ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/71 "2010-09-29T00:25:39Z")
the more things change…the more they stay the same. Remember, the Phoenix Program was initiated by LBJ, who coincidentally happens to be the white Obama. Take it for what it’s worth. democrat or liberal does not mean harmless. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/72 "2010-09-29T00:28:01Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > As proved by prominent right-wingers like Barack Obama? > > On matters of civil liberties, foreign policy, and Presidential secrecy, Obama has thusfar been damn difficult to distinguish from prominent right-wingers. Pity they’ll never let him into the club. What a lot of us predicted is coming true. Precedents that were established by the Bush administration aren’t disappearing with the Bush administration. Now that Bush showed what a President can get away with, future Presidents are going to be tempted to cross lines as well. That’s why I’ve deplored it when these fundamental issues about government limits became partisan. Too many people were willing to let their guy slide, without thinking about the fact that the other guy would eventually be doing the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/73 "2010-09-29T09:08:37Z")
Bricker: Is there any legal reason Obama could not order the death or capture of an innocent American, right now, under the pretense of the “War on Terror”, and then cry “State Secrets” to avoid being punished for his gross abuse of power? And if not, do you recognise why we have a problem with the government being permitted to use “Trust me” as an absolute defence for any wrongdoing? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/74 "2010-09-29T12:39:01Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Bricker: > Is there any legal reason Obama could not order the death or capture of an innocent American, right now, under the pretense of the “War on Terror”, and then cry “State Secrets” to avoid being punished for his gross abuse of power? > > And if not, do you recognise why we have a problem with the government being permitted to use “Trust me” as an absolute defence for any wrongdoing? Well, first you must ask yourself how he would be punished. The state secrets doctrine is a defense against a civil lawsuit. It’s not a defense against a criminal charge. In fact, the most clear-cut weapon against any President has no defense at all: impeachment. If Congress thinks the President’s action is a crime, they can remove him. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/75 "2010-09-29T13:23:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, first you must ask yourself how he would be punished. The state secrets doctrine is a defense against a civil lawsuit. It’s not a defense against a criminal charge. Ah, thanks. I didn’t realise this. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/76 "2010-09-29T13:45:20Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Er, no. I can’t point to the place in the law that permits accidental collateral death in wartime. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all. > > Can you? Realizing that this is a side discussion, it is in fact true that the death of civilians is legally acceptable in wartime so long as the force being used is proportional to the military advantage of attacking a target. Deliberate targeting of noncombatants, or using a amount of force that was clearly excessive to the situation at hand, are prohibited by treaties and customary international law. [See page 5 of the PDF.](http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/77 "2010-09-29T14:52:00Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > It’s not a bill of attainder. > > > > If you are serious about your question, I’ll provide the caselaw. But the short answer is that the Constitution’s full force of protection applies inside the United States, and not outside the United States. > > If you can provide caselaw to support the notion that the government need not respect the constitutional rights of American citizens simply because they’re outside of the country, I suggest you forward it to Eric Holder. He could use it. “Full force” being the operative phrase \*\*Bricker \*\*used. For example, the US government can wiretap your phone w/o a warrant if you are in a foreign country. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/78 "2010-09-29T16:29:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > > If you can provide caselaw to support the notion that the government need not respect the constitutional rights of American citizens simply because they’re outside of the country, I suggest you forward it to Eric Holder. He could use it. > > “Full force” being the operative phrase \*\*Bricker \*\*used. For example, the US government can wiretap your phone w/o a warrant if you are in a foreign country. First of all, no they can’t. They still have to go through the whole FISA procedure. But assuming they did, could they then use what you said against you in a criminal prosecution? If you believe they can, go look up the Bill of Rights and find any stipulation that those rights don’t apply if you leave the United States. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/79 "2010-09-29T18:50:20Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > “Full force” being the operative phrase \*\*Bricker \*\*used. For example, the US government can wiretap your phone w/o a warrant if you are in a foreign country. > > First of all, no they can’t. They still have to go through the whole FISA procedure. But assuming they did, could they then use what you said against you in a criminal prosecution? If you believe they can, go look up the Bill of Rights and find any stipulation that those rights don’t apply if you leave the United States. First of all, they can. The FISA procedure is only required if one party is in the US. But think about it. How would they get a US judge to grant a warrant that was valid in the UK? Imagine searching an apartment instead of wiretapping. \* Hello, Mr. Expat. I have this warrant to search your flat. It’s all in order, see… I have the judge’s signature and everything. Right here… Justice Jones of the 1st Circuit Court in the United States.\* _Mr. Expat rolls on the floor laughing._ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325/80 "2010-09-29T19:00:06Z")
Missed the edit window… I should have added that it would be the CIA doing the overseas wiretapping. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-administration-arguing-they-can-assassinate-anyone-without-oversight/555325.md?page=5)