3 votes

Regarding the President's Authority to Use Lethal Force Against Americans

Let me preface this by saying I don't know much about Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. My initial opinion is that he is a career politican and didn't sign the Audit the Fed bill (I don't think) but the questions he sent to John O Brennan and the Whithouse are some I think we ALL would like answered. These are the specific questions he asked at the end of his letter. You can download the .pdf of his entire letter at the link below.

•How much evidence does the President need to determine that a particular American can be lawfully killed? Senior Administration officials have stated that the individual must pose a "significant" or 'imminent threat, but how much evidence is required to determine that this is the case?

•Does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender before killing them? Does this obligation change if the President's determination that a particular American is a valid target has not been publicly announced or publicly reported'?

•Senior officials have stated that the use of lethal force is permitted in situations where capture is not feasible. What standard is used to determine whether it is feasible to capture a particular American?

•Is the legal basis for the intelligence community's lethal counterterrorism operations the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or the President's Commander-in-Chief authority?

•Are there any geographic limitations on the intelligence community's authority to use lethal force against Americans? Do any intelligence agencies have the authority to carry out lethal operations inside the United States'?

•The United States Constitution states that no American may -be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Attorney General's 2012 speech at Northwestern University, which addressed the use of lethal force, referred to past Supreme Court cases that have applied this protection, and made apparent references to three cases in particular (Ex Parte Quirnin, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Mathews. v. Eldridge). However, none of these cases specifically addresses the government's ability to kill Americans without trial. Given this distinction, what is the rationale for applying these particular decisions to the question of when the President may legally kill an American?

http://go213mph.wordpress.com/documents-page/



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He should be corrected

The Fifth amendment states "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law."

That fits with the principle this country was founded that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal"

To apply these safeguards ONLY to Americans is erroneous, the right to life belongs to all of humanity.

Killing people in foreign or domestic lands without a declaration of war and without a due process affording a public trial to prove to the public their actions warrant their death is as Non-American as one can get.

Seems to presume that he actually has such authority.

Having the power is not exactly the same thing as being authorized.

I like that

I have always felt there is a distinct difference between being able to pull the trigger and being allowed to pull the trigger.

Just because you are able to does not mean you should.