PDA

View Full Version : White House - Do Not Kill List



tpeichel
05-31-2012, 10:57 PM
In response to the White House Kill List, a petition is up on the White House website to create a place to sign up for a Do Not Kill List.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/create-do-not-kill-list/HwqFwRtG

The New York Times reports that President Obama has created an official “kill list” that he uses to personally order the assassination of American citizens. Considering that the government already has a “Do Not Call” list and a “No Fly” list, we hereby request that the White House create a “Do Not Kill” list in which American citizens can sign up to avoid being put on the president’s “kill list” and therefore avoid being executed without indictment, judge, jury, trial or due process of law.

mrveggieman
06-01-2012, 10:30 AM
If anyone thinks that the official "kill" list started with president obama then you are sadly mistaken.

duane1969
06-01-2012, 11:00 AM
If anyone thinks that the official "kill" list started with president obama you then are sadly mistaken.

Yeah we all know it was Bill Clinton's idea.

MadMan1978
06-01-2012, 11:07 AM
Yeah we all know it was Bill Clinton's idea.


I dont know

I think it was Reagan :o:

duane1969
06-01-2012, 11:12 AM
I dont know

I think it was Reagan :o:

You would

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 11:21 AM
If anyone thinks that the official "kill" list started with president obama then you are sadly mistaken.

Even if that were true, does it make it okay?

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 11:25 AM
How does this President go from castigating the Bush administration for waterboarding KSM, a non-citizen, to simply assassinating a U.S. citizen? Does this in any way align with traditional American values?

mrveggieman
06-01-2012, 11:37 AM
Even if that were true, does it make it okay?


No it is not ok. I was just putting that out there for anyone who wanted to start another bash president obama discussion. Despite what some people believe Obama is not the gov't he is only an agent of the gov't and whenever he leaves office this same behavior will continue as normal.

pghin08
06-01-2012, 11:49 AM
American citizens? That's a stretch. It's a terrorist list, basically. Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen, was on that list and killed, but that's as far as it got. And IMHO, he was the most dangerous person in the world for the US. I think that's the only reason they are able to lump American citizens in there.

For the record, I don't like the concept of a "kill list".

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 12:26 PM
American citizens? That's a stretch. It's a terrorist list, basically. Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen, was on that list and killed, but that's as far as it got. And IMHO, he was the most dangerous person in the world for the US. I think that's the only reason they are able to lump American citizens in there.

For the record, I don't like the concept of a "kill list".

Once you become an American citizen, you are protected by the Constitution which is the overriding law of this country. How often does it get circumvented for our "protection"? Now we have a precedent for future Presidents to follow and as always, expand upon.

If this would have been Bush, the liberal left and the media would have crucified him. It points to a big weakness of having a liberal President, since the media plays their watch dog role much more effectively when a conservative is in the White House.

duane1969
06-01-2012, 12:32 PM
Once you become an American citizen, you are protected by the Constitution which is the overriding law of this country. How often does it get circumvented for our "protection"? Now we have a precedent for future Presidents to follow and as always, expand upon.

If this would have been Bush, the liberal left and the media would have crucified him. It points to a big weakness of having a liberal President, since the media plays their watch dog role much more effectively when a conservative is in the White House.

I agree with everything you said, especially how the liberals would have eaten Bush alive if he had done it. However, when a citizen crosses to the side ofthe enemy and begins killing Americans I believe that he renounced his right to citizenship. While he may have not renounced in writing to the Fed government, by his actions he has expressed his desire to no longer be a citizen of our country and by default forfeits his right to the protections afforded to citizens of our country.

Being a citizen is a two-way street. One can not claim the right to be protected as if a citizen while striving to overthrow the governing body that provides those citizenship rights.

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 12:47 PM
I agree with everything you said, especially how the liberals would have eaten Bush alive if he had done it. However, when a citizen crosses to the side ofthe enemy and begins killing Americans I believe that he renounced his right to citizenship. While he may have not renounced in writing to the Fed government, by his actions he has expressed his desire to no longer be a citizen of our country and by default forfeits his right to the protections afforded to citizens of our country.

Being a citizen is a two-way street. One can not claim the right to be protected as if a citizen while striving to overthrow the governing body that provides those citizenship rights.

It's not a simple issue, but American citizens are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, whether it be murder or any other crime, including treason.

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 12:54 PM
And what about the 16-year old son of Al-Alwaki, a U.S. Citizen born in Denver, that was killed by a drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father? Did he deserve to be assassinated by the CIA?

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 12:55 PM
In a perfect world it would be nice to give every criminal their day in court, unfortunately in many of these cases the person in question cannot be apprehended safely, and since they aren't volunteering to surrender themselves, this becomes the most affective way of dealing with them. Does it really matter what their citizenry is? At the end of the day, they are all human beings and as such deserve to be treated equally.

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 01:19 PM
In a perfect world it would be nice to give every criminal their day in court, unfortunately in many of these cases the person in question cannot be apprehended safely, and since they aren't volunteering to surrender themselves, this becomes the most affective way of dealing with them. Does it really matter what their citizenry is? At the end of the day, they are all human beings and as such deserve to be treated equally.

The U.S. Constitution codifies individuals liberties and freedoms with limited powers given to the central government. Assassination of U.S. Citizens is exactly the type of thing the framers were trying to stop. Sure, drone strikes are effective for the government, not so much for the citizen on the receiving end who does not get to make their case in court.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 02:13 PM
The U.S. Constitution codifies individuals liberties and freedoms with limited powers given to the central government. Assassination of U.S. Citizens is exactly the type of thing the framers were trying to stop. Sure, drone strikes are effective for the government, not so much for the citizen on the receiving end who does not get to make their case in court.

The fact that every individual is a HUMAN BEING should be what angers you, not whether or not they have US citizenry. I haven't seen the list but I would venture to guess NO ONE on it is looking for their day in court.

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 02:25 PM
The fact that every individual is a HUMAN BEING should be what angers you, not whether or not they have US citizenry. I haven't seen the list but I would venture to guess NO ONE on it is looking for their day in court.

Why should non-citizens have the same protections provided by the U.S. Constitution as U.S. citizens? Every country treats citizens and non-citizens differently.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 02:55 PM
Why should non-citizens have the same protections provided by the U.S. Constitution as U.S. citizens? Every country treats citizens and non-citizens differently.

I thought it was obvious, but since it isn't, I will say it again. Because they are all human beings. They should all be protected by human decency, not a piece of paper. Are not ALL men created equal, or just all men born under a certain flag?

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 03:05 PM
I thought it was obvious, but since it isn't, I will say it again. Because they are all human beings. They should all be protected by human decency, not a piece of paper. Are not ALL men created equal, or just all men born under a certain flag?

I agree that all men are created equal, but when you become an enemy of the U.S., our laws have different standards for how citizens and non-citizens are treated.

JustAlex
06-01-2012, 03:16 PM
Wait.....wait....wait...

Where was this outrage by the GOP when Guantanamo Bay had people detained with NO DUE PROCESS under the Bush administration REGARDLESS of nationality?!?!?

Where was this outrage by the GOP when the Bush administration was torturing POWs which is ILLEGAL by the Geneva convention?!?!?

By my understanding Dick Cheney is a WAR CRIMINAL who is scared to leave the U.S...


The GOP: Grand Old HYPOCRICY Party....

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 03:26 PM
Wait.....wait....wait...

Where was this outrage by the GOP when Guantanamo Bay had people detained with NO DUE PROCESS under the Bush administration REGARDLESS of nationality?!?!?

Where was this outrage by the GOP when the Bush administration was torturing POWs which is ILLEGAL by the Geneva convention?!?!?

By my understanding Dick Cheney is a WAR CRIMINAL who is scared to leave the U.S...


The GOP: Grand Old HYPOCRICY Party....

Hypocrisy is the Presidential candidate who railed against every one of the policies the Bush Administration put in place to fight terrorism in 2008, but has continued, and even expanded upon, almost all of those very same policies during his own tenure.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 03:30 PM
I agree that all men are created equal, but when you become an enemy of the U.S., our laws have different standards for how citizens and non-citizens are treated.

I understand that. It just doesn't sound right to me. If, as a country, you decide that all your citizens deserve a certain level of protection under the law wouldn't you want to offer that same level of protection to everyone?

JustAlex
06-01-2012, 03:35 PM
Hypocrisy is the Presidential candidate who railed against every one of the policies the Bush Administration put in place to fight terrorism in 2008, but has continued, and even expanded upon, almost all of those very same policies during his own tenure.

You know what.....I AGREE!

I agree 100% and that's why I'm NOT an Obama defender.


However, the GOP has made his job almost unbearable and instead of wanting what's best for America they have pushed to politics of partisanship to a level which has not been seen before.

And even if Obama hasn't done what we hoped he would, that doesn't excuse their behavior these last 4 years!

shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 04:56 PM
GOP made his job unbearable, maybe that goes the other way

where are the jobs?????

and come january 1st we are all screwed (unless you are unemployed or on entitlements or obama)

i told my wife before obama was elected he will either be the best president ever or the worse, no in between for him. i was hoping, for his sake (and mine) he would be the greatest, but he hasn't

he needs to pull that ace out of his pocket he has been hiding and get some jobs created

if he backed off on his tax increase and really did something about job growth, he should be re elected and would perhaps have my vote. but right now, he sucks

JustAlex
06-01-2012, 05:31 PM
GOP made his job unbearable, maybe that goes the other way
LOL...what does that even mean???

The GOP has control of the House and they filibuster EVERYTHING in the Senate.

Please explain how it's "the other way".


where are the jobs?????

Yeah Good question....where are the jobs GOP?!?!?

The GOP were elected in mass numbers on 2010 (And control the House) and still NO JOBS!!!


and come january 1st we are all screwed (unless you are unemployed or on entitlements or obama)

Yeah....we all know Obama CREATED unemployment and a other entitlements.

We all know Obama is 100% to blame for everything...


i told my wife before obama was elected he will either be the best president ever or the worse, no in between for him. i was hoping, for his sake (and mine) he would be the greatest, but he hasn't

Well, I'll make a "Bold" prediction right NOW...

Mitt (The Dog Abuser) Romney will be the WORST president ever or at least in the bottom 5, NO IN BETWEEN FOR HIM...


Mitt (The Mexican) Romney has no real plans to make the U.S any better.


BTW, have you seen his birth certificate?

Because I HAVEN'T and there's NO WAY I'm letting a Mexican-Mormon-Dog abusing-Polygamist enter the our sacred white house. :rolleyes:

TheTGB
06-01-2012, 07:03 PM
When you are dealing with an enemy who has no defined borders, no real government, and take the strategy of a type of guerilla warfare...what are you supposed to do?

I supported Bush on Afghanistan, but not going to war with Iraq. However, Obama is not going to war with these other countries. He does not want war with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. The only other option to get the objective done is to kill the targets one at at time, without much regard to where they are located. These countries are also most likely agreeing to these strikes behind the scenes.

As far as US citizens go, if they have turned their back on the US in order to aid the enemy, it's called treason. I understand the Constitution and fair trial to citizens to determine said treasonous acts (which they would either be put to death or in prison for life anyway, still using up more taxpayers money). Military and American civilian lives are being saved by the use of drones on their targets, citizens or not. Would you rather put a ton of people at risk over one person or get the job done just as effectively by using drone aircraft?

Yes, he is "breaking" the Constitution, however, it is for the good of the country. If you were put in that position, what would you do to get the job done? Send troops/agents into these countries and take them out black ops style? Send in the tanks and helicopters? Let them sit in a "safe haven" they know the US will not declare war with and plan out more attacks on the US and allies?

The kill list is deeply researched and signed off on by Obama after finding the best time to complete the objective with as little collateral damage as humanly possible, which has been quite low after Obama has scolded the agency for accidentally taking out non-threats in other countries.

The NYT article on the whole program is quite intriguing.

duwal
06-01-2012, 07:39 PM
GOP made his job unbearable, maybe that goes the other way

where are the jobs?????

and come january 1st we are all screwed (unless you are unemployed or on entitlements or obama)

i told my wife before obama was elected he will either be the best president ever or the worse, no in between for him. i was hoping, for his sake (and mine) he would be the greatest, but he hasn't

he needs to pull that ace out of his pocket he has been hiding and get some jobs created

if he backed off on his tax increase and really did something about job growth, he should be re elected and would perhaps have my vote. but right now, he sucks


jobs are out there, people either don't want them, are above them or didn't do what it took during college to get the right requirements for it. Open up a newspaper and there are pages of job opportunities in every semi-major city. People nowadays would rather just collect unemployment than go out and work two jobs to make a living

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 01:56 AM
only 29000 jobs created last month, you need an average of 75000 just to keep up with the new work force coming in, so though there are jobs, there are not enough of them, in fact that puts us at a negative 46000 jobs last month, not a good thing

though i agree many just don't want to work

tpeichel
06-02-2012, 09:42 AM
I understand that. It just doesn't sound right to me. If, as a country, you decide that all your citizens deserve a certain level of protection under the law wouldn't you want to offer that same level of protection to everyone?

It depends what you are talking about. If you visit our country you get plenty of the same rights and protections as citizens.

tpeichel
06-02-2012, 10:14 AM
When you are dealing with an enemy who has no defined borders, no real government, and take the strategy of a type of guerilla warfare...what are you supposed to do?

I supported Bush on Afghanistan, but not going to war with Iraq. However, Obama is not going to war with these other countries. He does not want war with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. The only other option to get the objective done is to kill the targets one at at time, without much regard to where they are located. These countries are also most likely agreeing to these strikes behind the scenes.

As far as US citizens go, if they have turned their back on the US in order to aid the enemy, it's called treason. I understand the Constitution and fair trial to citizens to determine said treasonous acts (which they would either be put to death or in prison for life anyway, still using up more taxpayers money). Military and American civilian lives are being saved by the use of drones on their targets, citizens or not. Would you rather put a ton of people at risk over one person or get the job done just as effectively by using drone aircraft?

Yes, he is "breaking" the Constitution, however, it is for the good of the country. If you were put in that position, what would you do to get the job done? Send troops/agents into these countries and take them out black ops style? Send in the tanks and helicopters? Let them sit in a "safe haven" they know the US will not declare war with and plan out more attacks on the US and allies?

The kill list is deeply researched and signed off on by Obama after finding the best time to complete the objective with as little collateral damage as humanly possible, which has been quite low after Obama has scolded the agency for accidentally taking out non-threats in other countries.

The NYT article on the whole program is quite intriguing.

A very reasonable argument.

The problem I see is that the government has taken on a "laws are for the little people" attitude. (Note how many people in government don't pay their taxes, the President's belief that no laws were broken by the banksters or regulators during the housing boom and collapse, etc) They frequently circumvent the Constitution and do as they please.

When you say:
Yes, he is "breaking" the Constitution, however, it is for the good of the country. If you were put in that position, what would you do to get the job done?

Since 2001 we've seen our freedoms and liberties encroached upon little by little with very little push back by the American people. (Been fondled by the TSA lately and who knows who's if anything we do or say is safe from government spying). At every point along the way we're told it's for our own protection. I mean is it really so dangerous in the U.S. that we need drones patrolling our skies? How long before we need "protection" and the government decides to arm the drones?

At some point we need to say enough is enough and to me that time has past.

MadMan1978
06-02-2012, 10:37 AM
First I will remind you all to stay on topic


I have a huge issue with this thread and some comments...

I have a hard time believing that any President would have a "KILL" LIST...Really does anyone believe that anyone sitting in that office first would have such a list...and if they remotely had a list such as this ...Would they let it leak that this list even exists?

Call me what you wish...I think this is one of those cases of someone saying something and it being turned sideways by the media

tpeichel
06-02-2012, 01:29 PM
First I will remind you all to stay on topic


I have a huge issue with this thread and some comments...

I have a hard time believing that any President would have a "KILL" LIST...Really does anyone believe that anyone sitting in that office first would have such a list...and if they remotely had a list such as this ...Would they let it leak that this list even exists?

Call me what you wish...I think this is one of those cases of someone saying something and it being turned sideways by the media

I agree that it is shocking, but it's not some wacky conspiracy theory. Here's a link to the story in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

TheTGB
06-02-2012, 08:35 PM
A very reasonable argument.

The problem I see is that the government has taken on a "laws are for the little people" attitude. (Note how many people in government don't pay their taxes, the President's belief that no laws were broken by the banksters or regulators during the housing boom and collapse, etc) They frequently circumvent the Constitution and do as they please.

When you say:
Yes, he is "breaking" the Constitution, however, it is for the good of the country. If you were put in that position, what would you do to get the job done?

Since 2001 we've seen our freedoms and liberties encroached upon little by little with very little push back by the American people. (Been fondled by the TSA lately and who knows who's if anything we do or say is safe from government spying). At every point along the way we're told it's for our own protection. I mean is it really so dangerous in the U.S. that we need drones patrolling our skies? How long before we need "protection" and the government decides to arm the drones?

At some point we need to say enough is enough and to me that time has past.

If the government ever decided to do a drone strike domestically, it would probably be the most stupid thing a President could sign off on. Unless there was validated proof that the drone strike saved a very large number of lives like preventing a nuclear holocaust that would kill millions. A decision where you may take the lives of a few innocent to save the lives of a million innocent people is a situation that is not unfeasible. Being the President is a tough job and people who oppose actions just because they have a certain letter by their name don't have an open mind to whatever is going on.

tpeichel
06-02-2012, 08:56 PM
If the government ever decided to do a drone strike domestically, it would probably be the most stupid thing a President could sign off on. Unless there was validated proof that the drone strike saved a very large number of lives like preventing a nuclear holocaust that would kill millions. A decision where you may take the lives of a few innocent to save the lives of a million innocent people is a situation that is not unfeasible. Being the President is a tough job and people who oppose actions just because they have a certain letter by their name don't have an open mind to whatever is going on.

I agree that it sounds far-fetched, but I used to think that we'd never see unmanned drones in the U.S.A providing surveillance for the government. I never thought the government would create a procedure that gropes women and children just to ride on an airplane. And I never thought the government would pass a law that allows them to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial if the government says they are a terrorist.