This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
Yes. In general Presidents have immunity.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@HoraceGreenley [quote]Yes. In general Presidents have immunity.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.[/quote]
That's not true. The federal constitution gives Congress the power to target foreign enemies of the country. It has been used countless times throughout history.
Section 8: Powers of Congress
[b][c=BF0000]"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
[/c][/b]
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i
Your focus on Obama just shows that you are an orange traitor's stooge who gobles up the orange traitor's BS like you are eating vanilla ice cream on Mars.
Be sure to let us know when you will whine about the fifteen CIA attempts to kill Castro and all of the other assassinations other Presidents have done around the world.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.[/quote]
That's not true. The federal constitution gives Congress the power to target foreign enemies of the country. It has been used countless times throughout history.
Section 8: Powers of Congress
[b][c=BF0000]"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
[/c][/b]
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i
Your focus on Obama just shows that you are an orange traitor's stooge who gobles up the orange traitor's BS like you are eating vanilla ice cream on Mars.
Be sure to let us know when you will whine about the fifteen CIA attempts to kill Castro and all of the other assassinations other Presidents have done around the world.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
There is no explicit clause in the Constitution granting this power. Your own reference indicates this.
In fact, in 1976, President Ford issued an executive order prohibiting government personnel from killing foreign political figures. That eas on respose to the attempted aspirations of Castro.
That position was changed in the 80s:
U.S. Supreme Court terms “strict scrutiny.” That means the targeted citizen must pose an imminent threat to life (or threaten serious physical injury) and killing him or her must be a last resort.
In other words, a national security finding must be present. It must stand up to both Congressional and Supreme Court tests.
I used the example of Obama and Osama bin Ladin, because it is well known and obvious. Readers of my comment could easily relate to it. There was no political message intended.
You view things through the lens of politics. You don't know the law. Don't presume my motives.
This is because You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no explicit clause in the Constitution granting this power. Your own reference indicates this.
In fact, in 1976, President Ford issued an executive order prohibiting government personnel from killing foreign political figures. That eas on respose to the attempted aspirations of Castro.
That position was changed in the 80s:
U.S. Supreme Court terms “strict scrutiny.” That means the targeted citizen must pose an imminent threat to life (or threaten serious physical injury) and killing him or her must be a last resort.
In other words, a national security finding must be present. It must stand up to both Congressional and Supreme Court tests.
I used the example of Obama and Osama bin Ladin, because it is well known and obvious. Readers of my comment could easily relate to it. There was no political message intended.
You view things through the lens of politics. You don't know the law. Don't presume my motives.
This is because You have no idea what you are talking about.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@HoraceGreenley The President and Congress Critters are sworn to protect the country against foreign and domestic enemies. Congress has the power to ame a foreign leader as national enemy and then the President is supposed to kill the guy by issuing the order to his agents. Remember how they paid a $30 million bounty on Saddam?
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
The bounty on Saddam occurred during combat. The rules are different for combat.
There is no explicit power in the Constitution granting the President the ability to assassinate foreign nationals.
If there was, President Ford would not have had to issue his executive order. That set the stage for the legal framework we have today regarding assination.
The bounty on Saddam occurred during combat. The rules are different for combat.
There is no explicit power in the Constitution granting the President the ability to assassinate foreign nationals.
If there was, President Ford would not have had to issue his executive order. That set the stage for the legal framework we have today regarding assination.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
Ford created the executive order in response to the CIA's repeated attempts to assassinate Castro.
Whether that was the right thing to do or not is a different issue.
The fact is that my assessment of the legal framework for this issue is correct.
Ford created the executive order in response to the CIA's repeated attempts to assassinate Castro.
Whether that was the right thing to do or not is a different issue.
The fact is that my assessment of the legal framework for this issue is correct.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@HoraceGreenley Don't you know that the next President can toss the previous President's EOs in the shredder?
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
Yes. But that didn't happen in this case.
Again, my explanation of the legal situation is correct.
The world doesn't conform to the way you think it should function.
Yes. But that didn't happen in this case.
Again, my explanation of the legal situation is correct.
The world doesn't conform to the way you think it should function.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
In Ford's case, the Supreme Court ruled on his executive order and is the basis for today's legal foundation on this issue.
In Ford's case, the Supreme Court ruled on his executive order and is the basis for today's legal foundation on this issue.