4M

Do you think a President would authorise the killing of American citizens?

If they are a corrupt president then I would say that it would be possible.

Most sane people that are President wouldn't but I'm sure there is some nut out there that wouldn't blink twice.

I absolutely think a President would order the killing of American citizens if they thought it was for the greater good. I don't necessarily think it's because they're corrupt. They might be relying on bad information from subordinates, like in this case. I am positive if a plane full of U.S. citizens were on board a flight hijacked by terrorists that was heading for the Pentagon, military jets would be ordered to shoot them down. The passengers are going to die anyway, so better to get them before they crash into buildings again.

>6 Sergeirocks: Fully agree that this is not necessarily tied to corruption. Though it's a very fine line to toe. I'm not sure there is anybody who would investigate such orders and I think that an investigation should be mandatory in such a case. Your example seems to be pretty straight forward, but it touches important questions of morality.

Ferdinand von Schirach wrote a play called Terror, that has two different endings. It focuses on the court case of a fighter pilot who shot down a passenger plane headed for a football stadium full of people. Various people are heard, ground crew, superiors, colleagues, family of passengers, legal experts, specialists in ethics. This was shown in cinemas in different places around the world and after the witnesses are heard the spectators were requested to vote guilty or not guilty. Depending on that result, one of the two endings would follow, including the reasoning behind the verdict. They did this on television in Germany and Switzerland as well. In some countries, the verdict was always guilty, in some it was always not guilty, in others there were mixed outcomes. I found it fascinating that though the facts of the case are fully clear - he did shoot the plane without a formal order to do so, I found myself considering both verdicts in the course of the showing.

Here's the link to the results:
http://terror.theater/en

I think any Head of State would be prepared to authorise such killings, but some would have more qualms about their decision than others.

>5 sushicat: - thanks for the link. I'm always fascinated by this type of thing.

>5 sushicat: Very interesting. Thanks for the link!

I agree with Lynda that this is something that the President needs to be prepared to do if necessary to protect the country. Of course, I would also expect that it would be after he receives indisputable evidence that this person is a threat and there is no other option. However, I think in this case, the President was lax in believing his advisor and Cabinet member without the presentation of more substantial evidence.