Friday, March 29, AD 2024 12:38am

Obama Approves Assassination of Citizen

When Catholics justified their decision to vote for Obama, they did so on two grounds: healthcare and foreign policy. The premise was Obama would actually save lives through healthcare and through his more peaceful foreign policy, thus outweighing the damage he would do through his promotion of abortion.

I never found that premise convincing. Not only did I think they underestimated the damage abortion does, but I also believed that they were ignoring what Barack Obama was actually promoting in his foreign policy. To make a long story short, I think most people assumed that since Obama was a Democrat who had opposed the war in Iraq that he would be the opposite of Bush when in truth their positions are very similar.

Since taking office, Obama has largely followed the lead of his predecessor. However today news is coming out that he has surpassed his predecessor in circumventing due process: Obama has authorized the CIA to kill a US citizen believed to be involved in terrorism (H/t Vox Nova).

The idea that an American citizen can be killed without a trial outside of battle is a troubling one, regardless of whether you voted for Obama or not. The death penalty is something that should be used only rarely (if at all-I’m w/ the bishops that it’s not good in modern America), and if used then used in the context of a trial. The rights of trial are not merely procedural technicalities but safeguards designed to protect the dignity of life: that is, regardless of what someone has done, freedom & human life itself are so precious that we take it away only after a deliberate and careful process.

To take away human life outside of self-defense is a power no one, including the President, possesses. One will hope that the media will publish this and emphasize it so that public pressure will dissuade Obama from taking this course of action. Unfortunately, one has to doubt that that hope will be realized.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 7:20pm

Oh, but surely the president deserves the benefit of the doubt! He has “more information” than we do! And he should be allowed to do anything to save american lives!

At least, this is the defense you people made of Bush. Now you’re criticizing Obama on the same grounds?

Of course, much of Obama’s foreign policy is sheer evil, just like Bush’s. But do forgive me if I find your opposition of it laughable, considering you defended Bush’s policies. Your concerns ring hollow.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 7:40pm

An interesting debate on this topic taking place on National Review Online:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

I found this comment by Jonah Goldberg interesting:

“Re: Assassinating Awlaki [Jonah Goldberg]

Just my quick two cents: I think this is a good and fine debate to have, but it’s worth considering that one reason we’re having it is that the White House wants us to. As Steve Hayes noted last night on Special Report, the news that we would be targeting Awlaki was leaked months ago, around the time of the Christmas bomber. It was releaked this week, perhaps to counterbalance the news that the White House is considering removing references to Islamic extremism in its national security strategy.”

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 7:44pm

The Catholic Anarchist’s response to the news that the man he voted for is willing to have the CIA assassinate an American citizen is to rant against Bush and his supporters. I am shocked, shocked!

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 7:54pm

One of my rules of life Michael is that there are few things that cannot be made better by a Casablanca reference!

Foxfier
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 7:56pm

To quote my mom:
“Life is technicalities.”

I have no problem with murderers being targeted for death, I object to this one being killed without a trial to revoke his citizenship. (on the basis of having declared war on the US, if this is the youtube fellow I seem to remember)

(Ed note-No profanity, even if merely abbreviated.)

Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 8:11pm

I have no problem with murders being targeted for death

Typical view of The American Catholic.

(Ed-I changed your quote of him to what I changed him to say without the language).

Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 8:49pm

You really need to stop arguing by association.

And you should take your own advice, methinks.

Foxfier
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 8:50pm

MD-
Sure there is: we can’t do it, and trying to will make for a nice big pile of dead bodies. Failure to act has already resulted in innocent deaths– in part because this unspeakable has been able to be at war with a nation without even losing his citizenship of that nation.

R.C.
R.C.
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 9:34pm

Question:

What’s the standard?

What I mean is, under what circumstances may the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States authorize armed force against an enemy person?

Obviously we don’t try all enemy soldiers in American courts prior to bombing their positions.

On the other hand, obviously the President shouldn’t be able to declare any given Person X somewhere in the world to be an enemy and have him shot.

Somewhere between those two extremes is a line, which can be demarcated on the basis of moral principles.

What’s the standard?

I notice that the article brought up whether the target was on a battlefield. In this war, what battlefield would that be? A Paris nightclub? An apartment in Beirut? A city street pretty much anywhere?

It seems more pertinent to me to ask whether the subject is armed…but once the Nazis bedded down for the night, they weren’t armed. Yet I suppose we were perfectly willing to bomb the Nazi barracks, and I don’t suppose that was unjustified.

What then?

Perhaps the concern is whether the man is an American citizen? Hmm. The only way that seems pertinent to me is that, if we can capture him, we should try him for treason instead of locking him up until end-of-hostilities as an unlawful combatant. I mean, if we’re talking about a matter of human rights, and not just the particular privileges of citizenship.

I don’t mean to make absurd comparisons here. Of course I see the difference between blowing up a guy’s house in Kentucky and blowing up a Nazi barracks.

But I want to see the standards and criteria for authorizing force spelled out in plain language. It seems to me that doing this allows those standards to be evaluated dispassionately.

So: Those of you who think the CIA hit isn’t okay: What’s the least alteration in the situation required to make it okay? Those of you who think it’s fine: What alteration would make it beyond the pale?

Where’s the line? What’s the standard?

Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 11:15pm

God Bless America! I just want everyone to know how much I love my country.

If this doesn’t make you cry, you’ve got the devil in your soul.

(Ed-note: This is not an actual comment from Iafrate but a joke played on him)

Big Tex
Big Tex
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 11:22pm

I for one find this development troubling on several levels. This is very much in line with the previous administration’s foreign policy, but it goes a step further.

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Thursday, April 8, AD 2010 11:43pm

Yes, the thing that Obama defenders seem to be missing out on this topic is that by ordering the killing without trial of an American citizen, Obama is taking a step which the Bush administration explicitly declined to do. (And rightly, I would argue.)

Ordering any kind of assassination is troubling from a moral and a legal point of view, and it is (I think) with good reason that US law has generally forayed this. Setting the precedent of ordering the assassination of a US citizen (even on suspicion of terrorist involvement) without trial essentially means that Obama is claiming the authority to order the death of any person, at any time, for any reason.

That’s not something one wants any authority to claim. (And someone who imagines this is “the same” as having the authority to order military action is either ignorant or duplicious.)

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 12:42am

I just wanted to make sure you all saw this, so here it is again.

Why, I love this song so much that I may never post anything else here again.

(Ed-note: this is not an actual comment of Iafrate but a joke played on him.)

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 4:09am

First, will whoever it is that is manipulating Michael I’s posts stop?

Second, Michael D: did you read the updates on the link? Already the discussions are open.

Third, Darwin, are you so sure?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2856-cia-has-program-to-assassinate-us-citizens

restrainedradical
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 5:15am

Only American citizens deserve human dignity?

I’m not really worked up over this one way or the other, maybe because I don’t see any other president doing any differently, but I do find it somewhat disturbing that some believe killing Americans is somehow less immoral than killing non-Americans.

restrainedradical
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 5:16am

more immoral, rather.

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 7:00am

Would you be worked up about it if Bush did do so?

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 7:06am

Restrainedradical

For me, the issue is that this is another step away from human rights; I agree with you that assassination is wrong, whether or not an American. However, there has always been a sense that Americans are given more rights and protections – rights and protections I think which should be extended outside of America, but instead, we see the rights and protections being eliminated, to make everyone equal.

Jonathan
Jonathan
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 7:26am

Henry,

Is this the WaPo article – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010012700394 – with this correction:

“Correction to This Article
The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture. After The Post’s report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood.”

RL
RL
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 7:47am

The posts attributed to Iafrate are simply wrong. I disagree with the guy on a lot of things and I wouldn’t exactly consider him the most considerate and thoughtful person around the blogosphere, but while I appreciate the humor of it, it’s just wrong and makes you all look bad.

It’s your blog to do with as you see fit. I’ve voiced my opinion in the past that I don’t think you should moderate even the worst of his comments because most people can see them for what they are. They’re a true reflection of what he stands for and his character. Posting comments under his name that he clearly didn’t write shameful and even worse than the way the other blog refuses to post comments that challenge the fallacies and unwarranted assertions offered.

I would remove the comments, apologize, and promise to not do anything like this in the future. Common decency dictates that, and your regular readers deserve better (at least this regular reader thinks he deserves better).

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 7:55am

Michael’s posts are faked?

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 8:01am

Jonathan

A couple things. If you read beyond that, there is still the assertion of Americans being targets, just the CIA source is wrong. Second, there are other articles and discussions on the CIA affair– not just that one article. So, it is possible they were wrong, but as I said on the VN post, there are all kinds of indications which the Bush administration favored such actions and did them — even if we cannot prove it, I suspect this is not new, a creation ex nihilo, but an open admission to what was once not open. That is my intuition. Even if I am wrong there, there is nonetheless evidence which, though not proof, shows why one can suspect it is the case — and again, the line beyond what you quote is indicative of that, too.

Still, Obama is bad for doing this. But to believe it is new… and the Bush team opposed such an idea? Read Cheney.

John Henry
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 8:23am

The posts attributed to Iafrate are simply wrong.

Agreed RL. Completely classless. Michael’s a troll on this blog, no question about it. And anyone familiar with his writings will recognize the joke. But editing comments that way is a basic violation of blogging etiquette (as is the delete-all-dissent (DAD) policy at VN from some writers) and it shouldn’t happen. Apologies are owed to Michael I.

jh
jh
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 8:25am

I generally approve of what Obama is doing here. I can see the other side but I think he is solid COnst grounds here.

jh
jh
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 8:27am

If it was found in WWII tha there were in a army camp numbers of Japanes Americans that had returned to Japan to fight could we bomb it or since it they are citizens would we have to send in the FBI to arrest them

jh
jh
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 8:45am

“The death penalty is something that should be used only rarely (if at all-I’m w/ the bishops that it’s not good in modern America), and if used then used in the context of a trial. The rights of trial are not merely procedural technicalities but safeguards designed to protect the dignity of life: that is, regardless of what someone has done, freedom & human life itself are so precious that we take it away only after a deliberate and careful process.”

I think calling this the Death penalty , while a good way to try to put this in the Civil Context , is largely incorrect.

We currently have an young American Citizen from Mobile Alabama that is in Somilia (at least was) creatingterror and destruction in his for work for AQ. In his spare time he sends out videos urging all to the join the war against the United States

Woull targeting him be the death sentence or would it be valid military exercise?

Dale Price
Dale Price
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 9:23am

Michael D:

Actually, there is a real-life example you can use: the targeted shooting down of Japanese Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto’s plane while on an inspection tour. Yamamoto’s plane route was discovered because we had cracked the Japanese military code. The attack was authorized by President Roosevelt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto#Death

jh
jh
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 10:42am

Michael There would be nothing wrong for a Union Sharpshooter to shoot General lee in the back

Union and Confederate sharpshooters were shooting Officers all the time

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 11:19am

Michael D:

A soldier on leave is not a target.

Exactly. It is more than this, but this is the heart of the issue — for a war to be just, there are all kinds of rules for war; among them is how one finds targets (which goes with the question, is the soldier acting as a soldier, or outside of that domain). To approve of assassination in this instance is to extend the domain of the battle and the domain of what is and is not soldiering, both of which are troubling.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 11:27am

Of course the classic example is Adolph Hitler. Even before we were at war with Hitler I would have had no problem, moral or otherwise, with anyone assassinating Hitler after he came to power in Germany. The question gets much murkier when we are dealing with smaller fry in service to evil.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 12:29pm

I don’t think that however we can argue that a participant in war is subject to be killed at all times regardless of whether or not they are involved in the war. A soldier on leave is not a target.

I may be wrong on this, but I’m not aware of any restriction on killing enemy soldiers who aren’t on the battlefield or on leave or whatever. Nor is it clear what the moral difference would be.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 12:29pm

If there’s anything else MI would like me to do (or anyone has suggestions for me to do), please let me know.

Whoever did it should personally and publicly apologize.

Michael J. Iafrate
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 12:37pm

I may be wrong on this, but I’m not aware of any restriction on killing enemy soldiers who aren’t on the battlefield or on leave or whatever.

You are wrong. The church condemns the killing of non-combatants.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:06pm

BA

Actually, just war theory discusses the status of soldiers, and makes sure that they must be, when engaged, combatants; military necessity and proportionality are a part of the ways this is addressed in classical terms. The soldiers can be captured, but if they have given up fighting, they can’t be killed as if they were still fighting. And if they are, for example, off the battlefield, they are no longer fighting.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:11pm

BA

BTW, this is why we can’t just take out wounded soldiers or prisoners of war; just because they are soldiers does not mean they fit the status of combatants, they can lose that status in various ways.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:15pm

Actually, just war theory discusses the status of soldiers, and makes sure that they must be, when engaged, combatants; military necessity and proportionality are a part of the ways this is addressed in classical terms. The soldiers can be captured, but if they have given up fighting, they can’t be killed as if they were still fighting. And if they are, for example, off the battlefield, they are no longer fighting.

I agree with all of this except the last sentence. I’ve never seen any discussion of Just War stating that you can’t kill enemy soldiers when they are “off the battlefield,” whatever that means.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:18pm

BA

Just gave you an example where this debate actually exists in the tradition — naked soldiers taking a bath. And if you agree that prisoners of war or wounded soldiers cannot be taken out indiscriminately, why? What makes them no longer free game, if they are still soldiers?

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:25pm

BTW, this is why we can’t just take out wounded soldiers or prisoners of war; just because they are soldiers does not mean they fit the status of combatants, they can lose that status in various ways.

Soldiers who are captured or wounded are *incapable* of fighting, and thus have traditionally been protected as noncombatants. That’s a far cry from someone who is capable of fighting, and who isn’t doing so at the moment only because he’s not aware of your presence.

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:28pm

Just because they are wounded or captured does not mean they are incapable of fighting; many wounded people get up and fight, and many people who are captured struggle for release. They might be less capable, but so is someone who is not on the battlefield, without any weapons of any kind. Capture them, if you wish. Assassinate when they don’t possess a threat? What?!

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:40pm

You are wrong. The church condemns the killing of non-combatants.

Well sure. But an enemy soldier is a combatant.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:45pm

Just gave you an example where this debate actually exists in the tradition — naked soldiers taking a bath.

Larry May (the author you cite) argues that you shouldn’t kill a naked soldier but says that this is not a matter of justice but humaneness, and admits that his position is not the standard one. The only source he cites discussing the issue, Walzer, treats it as obvious that killing the naked soldier is permitted.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 1:47pm

Just because they are wounded or captured does not mean they are incapable of fighting; many wounded people get up and fight, and many people who are captured struggle for release.

Right, and if a wounded soldier picks up a gun and starts shooting or an enemy soldier tries to escape then they lose the protection of noncombatant status. Do you not agree with that?

Henry Karlson
Friday, April 9, AD 2010 2:05pm

BA:

The point of the article is that it is an issue of concern and debate within the framework of just war discussions. And humanness and mercy is within the context of just war discussions (see Augustine). More importantly, your answer “and if they pick up a gun and starts shooting” goes back to the naked soldier point. They are not with a gun, not shooting. Remember, one aspect of just war theory is response must be just — which goes with the humanness issue of the article but he didn’t put it in that context — that is, if you can capture without killing, that is what is expected.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top