Yes, I responded to that thread at post #11 and post #13.
So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges; indeed, when asked if "the Constitution permit[s]" that, he responded: "no." Yet now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documented in April, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here. Given Brennan's strong suggestion that there are not merely three but "dozens" of Americans who are being targeted or at least could be ("they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response") -- and given the huge number of times the Government has falsely accused individuals of Terrorism and its demonstrated willingness to imprison knowingly innocent detainees -- is it time yet to have a debate about whether we think the President should be able to exercise a power like this?
How can this pass any kind of Constitutional muster? Where is the president given the authority to assassinate American citizens, with or without due process, but most especially without? Forgive my needing something spelled out more clearly, I am not military, what I know is from years of reading, discussing things with family who were military. Both of my good resources have passed away, so I cannot ask them -- killing the enemy on the battlefield is not assassination. Eliminating those who have done us harm or are in the process (planning attacks, etc.) is not assassination. Why are they using this word for the situation described?
And how can 0bama and his people justify assassination of American citizens, regardless where they happen to be located in the world?? Is any FReeper able to clear my lack of comprehension?