After news of an Obama "Kill List," a petition for a "Do Not Kill" list

There's a new petition drive on the White House website, inspired by the New York Times story about a so-called "kill list" the President uses to decide which war on terror enemy should be taken out by drones or air strikes: The Do Not Kill List. If it reaches 25,000 signatures, the White House must respond. (via WSJ)


  1. “If it reaches 25,000 signatures, and it’s close at the time of this blog post, the White House must respond.”

    Of course, the White House will respond –– with mocking laughter, just like it did to the petition to end marijuana prohibition. Just another way for government officials to pretend they give a flying fuck what you think while they continue to do whatever the hell they want.

    1. This is exactly what I was going to say and what will happen. I’ll sign the petition anyway, in the off chance he takes it seriously in an election year.

    2. We have a similar thing in the UK; and at one point a petition was created and the prime minister guaranteed that the content would be seriously considered if enough people signed it (something around 50k). It got far more than the required signatures, so what did the PM do? Changed his mind.

      This wasn’t even about changing law or making new rules, it was about CONSIDERING something.

      After that I didn’t Bother to sign any more. Democracy my foot.

    3.  The petition is just to bring awareness to Obama’s kill list.  No one expects Obama to say “The people have spoken…” and announce a change.

      If 25000 people sign the petition it will make the news again and more people will have heard of the real kill list.

  2. You appear to have swapped the “signatures gathered” and “signatures obtained”. It’s a long, long way away from reaching the goal.

    Mind you, a post here and there could change that dramatically.

    1.  Yes, it’s located right next to the kill list.  But the two lists are not labeled.

      Good luck!

  3. Step Two: a petition to force them to actually  read this petition and take it seriously.

  4. I’m sorry. This would be terrible policy and / or law. If there’s a “kill” list and a “no-kill” list, what if you are on neither (as seems extremely likely, there being 7 billion people on the planet)? I’m pretty sure Stevens, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas would ensure the the “no-kill” lists were kept clean by their stringent standards. And the people on neither list? Heh. Just hadn’t finished the paperwork.

  5. If we get enough signatures, NBC will HAVE to make new episodes of “Star Trek” with the entire original cast, including the dead ones!

      1. Exactly.  The petition shouldn’t be to create a do not kill list!  Damn, people, wake up.  It should be to abolish and outlaw the kill list (something that should never have come about in the first place)!

  6. I think this should be the new “Name a Star” gift. “I got you this certificate that says I placed you on the Do Not Kill list. You’re welcome.”

    1. Ha! Great idea. 

      Seriously, you should start that business. From what I understand your authority would be just as arbitrary as the “Star Registry” or whatever it was called. And think of the fun you could have with the certificates.

    2. Go with it. You could do specials – buy five, get one free. The family-pak. The pet edition.

      In fact, why not start an MLM scheme and get the whole planet done by August?

  7.  Divert a measly 10% of our bloated ‘kill everyone a hundred times over’ pentagon budget and use it for two things: humanitarian aid, worldwide; and a Manhattan Project for green energy. Get the fuck out of the M.E., and let them kill each other.

    Then, act like civilized people and treat criminal acts as such. Lose the whole ‘terrism’ thing, please.

    1. “Let them kill each other.”? You think that that’s the problem? We’ve been killing untold thousands of them for a decade. We’ve been screwing with their economies for the better part of a century. That could possibly be the cause of some of the instability and civil war.

      Let’s be very blunt here. That phrasing, in this reference is racist, or at the very least xenophobic.

      1.  I think the problem is that we have been meddling in their affairs since the late 1700s. I would vote to remove ourselves from their equation. And, do you think that they had not been ‘killing each other’ pretty regularly before we were a blip on their screen? Let their regional politics be regional.

        Did you happen to miss the first half of my comment above?

      2. Oh puhlease. It may demonstrate an incomplete understanding of the situation, but its no more racist than calling Americans fat. Its a national regional or cultural stereotype, not a racial one.

        1. No, I know. The Middle East is a pretty big country after all. Not quite as large as the Democratic Republic of Africa, but nothing to scoff at, either.

          What do I know anyway, we were probably talking about blonde, white people from the Middle East. I retract all previous comments!

          1. @boingboing-60c530d611f7017ba51093527ac1ee3d:disqus  We’re almost there. In summary: it’s not racism, it’s just a regional stereotype applied to places where brown people are.

          2. @travtastic:disqus: I don’t know why you’re so hung up on this “brown people” thing. No one has suggested or come close to implying that there’s a lot of violence in the middle east *because* there’s brown people there.

    1. Honestly, if he’s personally reviewing each and every mission where the military under his control might specifically target a particular individual military enemy of our country, and choosing to make that decision himself, that really is change, and I really can believe in it.

      Truman had a sign on his desk that said, “The Buck Stops Here”.  If “the government” is going to choose to kill our battlefield enemies, I have a lot more respect for our head of government if he is personally taking the responsibility for the decision.  The buck really is stopping here.  “The government” in this case is one man, who is taking seriously the duty to protect his people and to bear the burden of command.

      1. The problem is that that’s bad decision-making. I don’t care that he’s carrying the personal burden; I care that the decision is made by the person best able to do it.  That’s why we have courts; to make sure that these decisions are made by fully-informed people close to the facts, not somebody ten levels up whose read a summary.

        It’s better than, say, Bush.  But it’s still stupid and dangerous.

        1. ^This.

          He feels like he needs to take personal responsibility? Great. He feels like he needs to tear up a multi-century tradition of due process and John Wayne it instead, demonstrating for everyone who comes after him how even the most basic civil protection can be ignored in the name of war? Not so great. I can’t believe he’s a Constitutional law scholar.

        2.  Bush or Obama, the concept of a presidential kill list is so odious that it is nearly irrelevant to consider which political figurehead you’d prefer to bear responsibility. At that point it’s just marketing; Bush’s personality appealed to a large subset of the population just as Obama has his own following.

  8. “If it reaches 25,000 signatures, the White House must respond.”

    After some internal deliberation which constitutes “due process”, the White House has decided that it need not respond to this. Thank you for playing!

  9.  … But they thank you for your interest and hand the list of signatures over to the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, and just for laughs to the TSA.

  10. While you’re on the site signing this petition, please also consider my petition requesting that the USA build a giant robot.

  11. As long as we have a kill list, why don’t we do some good with it? Could we petition to put specific people on it? Would it be illegal to ask, or would it only be illegal if they don’t get put on the list that makes them legal to kill?

    On a completely unrelated subject, Rupert Murdoch.

  12. The enumeration on the Do Not Kill List, of certain persons, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others’ right not to be killed.

  13. Somebody should circulate an email to their older relatives and tell them to sign up, like with the do not call list.  Tell them it’ll save them from the Obamacare death panels, and let them spread the word.  You’ll have 500,000 signatures in no time and they won’t even know what happened.

Comments are closed.