when can the license to kill that has been authorized be used?

[PLC1]

[h=1]When Can the U.S. Kill Americans? The White House Won't Say.[/h]

Sen. Ron Wyden has spent two years demanding that the Obama administration share its legal opinions justifying the targeted assassinations of suspected American terrorists abroad. After all, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, the Oregon Democrat is entitled (and cleared) to know. How can his panel provide oversight if officials won’t say what legal authority they have, let alone in which countries it applies? The White House has spent those two years stonewalling. “The administration’s position is basically, ‘Trust us,’” Wyden tells National Journal. “Nowhere in the charge to the committee does oversight get defined as trusting the executive branch of the United States.”

"Trust us."

We won't abuse the license to kill.

Neither will any subsequent administration.

If you can't trust the federal government, who can you trust after all?

 

[Aus22]

Previous US governments have made 8 attempts to assassinate Castro. They have killed leaders In Vietnam, Africa ans South America.

 

[PLC1]

Previous US governments have made 8 attempts to assassinate Castro. They have killed leaders In Vietnam, Africa ans South America.

American citizens?

 

[dogtowner]

Previous US governments have made 8 attempts to assassinate Castro. They have killed leaders In Vietnam, Africa ans South America.

to name a VERY VERY few.

when exactly did they ever NOT have this license to kill ?

 

[dogtowner]

American citizens?

they've been doing this since well before Lincoln. the difference here is that the current administration is too stupid to know when to keep its collective mouth shut.

 

[PLC1]

they've been doing this since well before Lincoln. the difference here is that the current administration is too stupid to know when to keep its collective mouth shut.

You're OK with it then?

 

[dogtowner]

You're OK with it then?

there is no changing it. I would rather they not let the cat out of the bag. It upsets people and to no good end.

Can you acknowledge that there can be justifiable instances for this ? an example(something akin to this is real): an intelligence community operative goes amok and starts killing people or otherwise putting other intel assets in danger. Trouble is, he's highly trained and will not allow capture.

Is it open to abuse ? Certainly. Has it been abused ? No doubt.

 

[PLC1]

there is no changing it. I would rather they not let the cat out of the bag. It upsets people and to no good end.

Can you acknowledge that there can be justifiable instances for this ? an example(something akin to this is real): an intelligence community operative goes amok and starts killing people or otherwise putting other intel assets in danger. Trouble is, he's highly trained and will not allow capture.

Is it open to abuse ? Certainly. Has it been abused ? No doubt.

If someone has gone amok and started killing people, sure. That's no different from taking out a gunman who is shooting people. Other than that, no.

 

[dogtowner]

If someone has gone amok and started killing people, sure. That's no different from taking out a gunman who is shooting people. Other than that, no.

I wish I could say its always this justifiable. I also wish they had decided to make the hitlist meetings so widely attended. They do need a nod from the CIC / top dog in intel but many of the rest are so many too many cooks to spoil the broth.

Maybe you can take some comfort from knowing that hits of this kind are costly and while BO doesnt care about spending money on himself he is conversly cheap on this sort of thing.