Holder: Not 'assassination' to target Americans in terror hunt
By Terry Frieden
Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are suspected of plotting to kill Americans, rejecting critics' arguments that those strikes amount to assassinations.
While not referring directly to the government's drone attack on U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year, Holder was unflinching in providing publicly for the first time the Justice Department's legal justification for using lethal force, saying attacks like the strike that killed al-Awlaki fell within "our laws and values."
RECOMMENDED on GPS blog: Evaluating Holder's speech on targeted killings
"Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated force, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful," he said.
Security Clearance: Covering terrorism, military, intelligence and diplomacy
The attorney general's speech to an audience at the Northwestern University Law School in Chicago marked his most expansive comments on the subject of deadly attacks against Americans since his lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a still-secret opinion declaring such lethal attacks are legal and justifiable.
But he said three conditions must exist. The U.S. government must have determined that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against America; capture of the suspect is not feasible; and the operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war.
Holder argued that al Qaeda has the ability to spring surprise attacks and is considered to be continuously planning against to attack on America. Therefore, the law allows for striking even before the "precise time, place, and manner of an attack becomes clear."
"Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed," he said.
Holder rejected the charge that the deadly operations violate the government's ban on assassinations and dismissed the notion the strikes fit the definition of assassination at all.
"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced," he said. "Assassination are unlawful killings," while killings under the conditions he outlined would be lawful.
Holder also took issue with those who have charged the government agencies must get permission from a federal court before taking action against an al Qaeda target.
"This is simply not accurate," Holder said. "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
Al-Awlaki and another American, Samir Khan, were killed in September when a drone operated jointly by the CIA and a military unit destroyed a vehicle in which the men were riding in Yemen. Al-Awlaki, who U.S. intelligence officials have said was an operational planner for attacks, was the target of that strike.
Khan was traveling with al-Awlaki and was not specifically targeted.
Court documents show that Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the so-called "Underwear Bomber," told U.S. authorities that al-Awlaki had played a major role in the plot to blow up a commercial airliner en route to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. President Obama later said al-Awlaki had "directed the failed attempt."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the administration's drone program on behalf of al-Awlaki's father, said the speech was "a gesture towards additional transparency," but continued to object to the legal rationale.
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Hina Shamsi, the director of ACLU's National Security Project, said in an e-mailed statement. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden said Holder's speech left questions unanswered.
“For example, the government should explain exactly how much evidence the President needs in order to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group," Wyden said in a statement released on Monday. "It is also unclear to me whether individual Americans must be given the opportunity to surrender before lethal force is used against them. And I’m particularly concerned that the geographic boundaries of this authority have not been clearly laid out. Based on what I’ve heard so far, I can’t tell whether or not the Justice Department’s legal arguments would allow the President to order intelligence agencies to kill an American inside the United States."
Holder also used the speech to defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists, noting numerous successful prosecutions.
"The calls that I've heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality," Holder said. "If heeded, they would significantly weaken - in fact, they would cripple - our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt do us harm."
And Holder indicated more targeted killings are possible.
"When such individuals take up arms against this country, and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response," Holder said. "We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not."
He concluded, "This is an indicator of our times, not a departure from our laws and values."
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
There is always a special place in all versions of hell for traitors........
Ahem, yeah right Mr Holder. Me thinks your reading too many jewish and zionist fantasy books. What next, it's ok to rape and abuse Arab children because they might become terrorists? Sick society we live in, thanks to our zionist buddies.
You are sick to compare Arab children to that terrorist.
Yup. Check out "The Transfer Agreement" on youtube. You can also order the book off of several online bookstores.
ERIC HOLDER IS A TRAITOR. HE STANDS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND COULD EVEN CARE LESS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS. HE SHOULD ASSASINATE HIMSELF.
Scenario:
Let's say the US is at war with another country and I decide to fight for the other country and you for the USA. We meet in some rat hole and we both have guns pointing at each other. I tell you I am American, Are you going to turn your back on me? I hope so because you will be dead. Just because people are naturalize American does not give them the right to hide behind the Constitution, If you are a traitor, you should die like one.
No one ois arguing about shooting an American in combat on a battlefield.
Holder is declaring that tthe Preseident can unilaterally declare any American any where any time to be an enemy of the state and then kill him/her wherever he/she can be found. And the courts can't say Jack about it. And the Fifth Amendment no longer has any meaning at all. If you think that is all OK, then you're part of the problem.
"Even American terrorists fighting for foreign leaders have to be considered innocent until proven guilty."
HELL NO! If you are a terrorist you SHOULD DIE!
Ummm... What about when they already acknowledge their role in the crimes they are accused of and are open about their intent to cause more death?
so you agree with me right?
what if you are not a terrorist, but rather just pissed off the wrong person and then said person told lies on you about you being a terrorist, then you get killed for something you did not do without even a trial to prove your innocence.
THAT is why such constitutional rights are in place, but according to Obama, any american the government deems a terrorist is stripped of their constitutional rights and killed, even if they are innocent.
What if that happened to you or someone you love? With this disregard for the constitution, anyone is at risk of being labeled a terrorist and killed. Think it cant happen here? Well Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore. Stop sleep walking and realize the war on terror is a guise for emerging totalitarianism.
Would you be a terrorist if you supplied weapons to drug lords that wound up killing one of your law enforcement agents????? well would ya?????
If not a terrorist, then a traitor. In either case an enemy of the state and by his own definition a legitimate target
Typical liberal.
It depends on what your definition of is, is.
Eric Holder is fundamentally the same as Dick Cheney
A critical point that this article doesn't mention is that one of the Americans who was "targeted" was a 16 year old kid. By multiple accounts he was out to dinner. The government has never said what crimes he was guilty of, if any. So for all those on here trusting the government implicitly, they may have murdered a minor just because they could. Nothing has been said about the criteria required for an assassination. The term "terrorist" has undergone multiple changes already since 9/11. How long until it includes speaking out against the government and you become a target? How ironic is it that we are at war with terrorists who supposedly hate us for our freedoms while we are losing the very freedoms we are supposedly defending? First it was warrant-less wiretapping, then it was detentions, now it's assassinations, all in about 10 years.
No, no, no! You have it all wrong. You can't call it an assassination if it is legal. And Holder has declared it legal for the President to kill anyone he wants any time he wants. So don't you see that it is impossible for the President to ever assassinate anyone? Kind of how in olden days it was impossible for the King to break the law, since the King defined the law.
Understand?
My only regret is that didn’t get to pull the trigger myself.
Why should we elevate such killing as 'assassinations' ?
We ought to treat them like the trash they are. Take them out whenever we can.
Nothing worse than a citizen who acts against us. Traitors are several rungs lower than our enemies.
Anyone who believes that these newly arrogated powers to kill any American any time, any place, with no judicial review. whenever the President decides under his own criteria that the person is an enemy of the state will be limited to Muslim terrorists is ignorant of history and a fool. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will curse this generation for yeilding the power to decide every American's life and death to one man or woman. It took us almost 250 years, but we finally have our own King.
Piffle. Restating reality in those terms does not change a thing. What you describe is not happening.
And you know this how?
And even if is not happening today, history uncontrovertingly teaches that these kinds of powers are ALWAYS abused by men. So at most it is only a question of when, not whether.
If you think it does not or will not happened,you are blind.
@ Ken78
> And you know this how?
Good point. Now how do you know otherwise?
His explanation certainly sounds nice and reasonable, but the problem as I see it is where exactly does this end? There has been such an atrocious degradation over our civil liberties, right to privacy, etc. over the past 10 years, and they're being taken away slowly, methodically, and all under the guise of 'national security.' At some point, we, as Americans, need to be willing to accept that there will be certain risks associated with our freedom, liberty and democracy and be willing to accept some pain down the road, but in the long run, our freedom will be worth that sacrifice.
Still sounds like murder to me. Where are the international courts these days? I've always counted on them to bring U.S. officials to justice for their war crimes, i.e., Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, and now Obama and Holder.
And not only THAT, Holder – tell us why the American With Disabilities Act is totally invalid, when any government worker wants to use it.to keep his job???
and next Holder will be telling fathers we can't raise our kids... oh... he's already condoning this immorality...
All Americans are guaranteed due process. Even American terrorists fighting for foreign leaders have to be considered innocent until proven guilty. They must face a jury of their peers. What is the point of fighting for our country of we ignore our own rules. If we don't like the rules then we need to go through the process of amending our Constitution but until we do, those 'terrorists' are innocent until proven guilty!
Many American citizens are killed without "due process" when they are an imminent danger to other citizens and there is not an option of subduing them. It just so happens that the person is being protected by others and it is effectively a shootout. With missiles. So it seems very different but its pretty much the same situation as killing an armed person that will not surrender and is trying to harm others.
I am generally quite a liberal and still I see this as very straight forward.
You go bring him in and then we'll give him a nice trial. Until then he would be out there killing people.
Actually, this requirement is supposed to be for anyone charged with a crime by our governments. I don't know where we went wrong is believing the Constitution only applies to how the government treats US citizens. The Constitution is supposed to limit the government in all of its actions against all people.
We are guaranteed due process, but not judicial process? Huh? Aren't they the same? Lawyers will say the darndest things...
Go back to law school and get a clue. Due process ONLY applies when you're NOT fighting the federal government.
They are the only ones who can discriminate. Don't believe me? Tell them you're 40 years old, OR 6 feet 7 inches tall and want to join the military!! It ain't gonna happen!!!!!
there's a difference between a fair hanging and a fair trial, my friend ... due process is the shortcut to the rule.
Boo hoo for the terriorist when anyone of would kill an intruder in your and not give one thought of the court system or due process and if a terrosirt (American citizen) managed to strike while Obama is president all you wimps will be the first to holler why didn't Obama have him killed.
Define terrorist... Rambo. Right now... you have family court judges stealing rights and money from innocent civilians... like terrorists...
How can you not see how Stu pid it is to allow politicians and bureaucrats to decide who they can kill instead of jurys and courts?
THANK YOU! so true!
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
What part of this are Holder and Obama too stupid to understand? If you can read you know they are wrong, period.
Oh, they understand it. They also undertand that in 2012 Amerika, they can get away with ignoring it.
ha ha ha YOU THINK LAWYERS HONOR legistaltion, statutes, etc? I have a bridge to sell you. You are a child... right?
Couldn't we at least revoke their citizenship first to make it all nice and legal?
so you want an immoral two-step process... I see. How long have you been a judge?
I fully agree with you Bruce. US citizen's life should be protected, under all skies and above all lands. If a US citizen is a terrorist then its the governments obligation to revoke their citizenship as a first step and as a warning, and had they continued on their path of folly then its the obligation of the government to arrest them and if arresting them is impossible then as a last resort the government should assassinate them. If we don't value the life of our own citizens then why should other governments value the life of our citizens ?
Okaaay. . .so let me get this straight. . . ."innocent until proven guilty" is thrown out the window if a targeted individual is outside this country? An American citizen is entitled to due process, no matter HOW you slice it or dice it.
You're a moron.
Many American citizens are killed without "due process" when they are an imminent danger to other citizens and there is not an option of subduing them. It just so happens that the person is being protected by others and it is effectively a shootout. With missiles. So it seems very different but its pretty much the same situation as killing an armed person that will not surrender and is trying to harm others.
I am generally quite a liberal and still I see this as very straight forward.
There's a problem though. You do realize that two lawyers came up with the decision that the killing of Al-Awlaki was legal right? There's a catch though. They decided it would only be legal to kill him if it was impossible to capture him alive and bring him to trial. From what's been revealed, it seems that it would have been feasible to capture him as we were working in conjuncture with the Yemeni government and Al-Awlaki was far from any hostile field. Therefore by the own criteria that the administration used to justify the killing, they committed an illegal assassination and people cheered for it.
The difference between US (you, I, America) and rudementary barbarians is DUE PROCESS. It's a shame Northwestern entertained this barbarian's visit. It's a shame he represents "justice" in America. I'm ashamed. He disgraces the institiution in and of itself. IMPEACHMENT ANYONE? How much longer will we let this tyrrant run that power point?
he took up arms agaisnt the U.S. and that makes him a legitimate target
i don't care much for holder or this administration
but I agree with going after enemies of the state where ever they lay their heads
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
what proof do you have that he "took up arms" because not even the administration has come out and said that.
Fail. The difference between US and barbarians is DUE PROCESS. It's a shame Northwestern entertained this barbarian's opinion.
yeah and if one of these terrorist nutjobs attacked one of our cities, you would be asking for Obama's head! SHUT UP PLEASE! TERRORISTS DESERVE TO GO TO HELL AND DIE!
And yet by the administration's own actions they seem to have become a domestic threat to the Constitution that is sworn to be upheld. This administration assassinated a 16 year old kid as well. Wasn't on a battlefield, many accounts claim he was just going to dinner, never revealed if he ever committed a crime or if he was ever around terrorists, and he was born in America. So when does the defense of the Constitution against domestic threats come into play?
Lets put the whole oath in there that we both took, shall we...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Lets not forget the key part of this,,, "According to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Lets also consider the word "defend". Now, while I do not have much love or sympathy for anyone that takes up arms agains the U.S., let us also not forget that our founding fathers did take up arms against their country, AND they made sure we maintained our rights to do so again if our government ever became a tyranny. This is dangerous ground the current administration is laying, and I share the congressman's concern regarding the failure to layout the boundaries of such attacks. In other words, if this administration identifies citizens within the U.S. who they feel are a threat, can the president order their killing? anyone remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? Is this a broadening of those actions? That is not the oath I took. No Sir!
No, Eric, it's not lawful just because the Justice Department says so. If the Justice Department says that it were lawful to kill American citizens on other grounds, then you would feel justified in so doing? That's nonsense. You should know better.
Actually, in reality, if the DOJ says it's okay... it's okay.. no one else is going to protect you. So be scared.
So they can claim that an American is a terrorist, and just kill them, with no oversight and no due process? See, I told you this is how they'd use the Patriot Act way back when they first rolled it out. The Bill of Rights isn't worth the cannabis (er, I mean hemp) it's printed on.
Yeo. 100% correct. They've been wrongfully killing off financially-healthy fathers in corrupt family courts for years... now, they're thinking of thinning the herd. You elected lawyers. This is what they want.
OUR government is already attacking free speech. I wrote an email to my ex-wife criticizing the family court for stealing my 50-50 rights and money... without due process... because I ran out of money. My ex-wife showed this email to the court. In retaliation, they suspended my rights to see my kid IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF "BRIDGES VS. CALIFORNIA". The FBI says, "Although they stole 1 million of your money... it's not like Bernie Madoff. We can't bother with your case." TRUE STPORY. It's happending already folks. Americans running our government are ALREADY violating our rights.
WAKE UP. Stop electing lawyers. AG Holder's opinion should serve as a wake up call. You will be shot IF these dishonest creeps define you as a threat. Period. No due process.
This is serious.
Of course it is not assassination if it is a US Citizen on the other hand an illegal gets a trial before being released.
I know some of you might be "true believers" but i have to wonder if some of you supporting this move wouldn't have been absolutely outraged had Bush pulled a stunt like this.
Obviously the other side of that coin is that i'm sure there are no shortage of NeoCons out there condemning this simply because Obama did it.
Well said. I am a Democrat and I am positive that the criticism the Obama administration has received over the killing of Al Awlaki would not have been leveled against Bush, it wouldn't have even been a thought. I don't speak for all on the left but I would have ALSO supported Bush had he neutralized this guy. But he didn't. Actually, there are a lot of high level terrorist he failed to neutralize....like all.
Your crazy, had Bush done this the press would never have shut up about it. It would be on the evening news every night for a month. Obama got a pass on this ( with the press) like most other things but, I do not DISAGREE with what he did.
Some random thoughts....Somewhere missing in this equation is a little concept called "innocent until proven guilty". There's something in the constitution about facing your accusers in court, as well. If you want to go super old school, there's a commandment in the bible about not killing, too.
Just too many uneducated (or brainwashed) sheep out there these days. Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
Going 'old school' by your definition would be to unconstitutionally fuse church and state. Keep religion out of it.
This makes me incredibly ill. Goodbye United States Constitution. *sighing heavily*
That left with the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Acts.
At least there are some of us still cognizant enough to realize that. And so long as some of us know, there is still hope.
Holder illustrates perfectly exactly what is wrong with America. Power gone mad, self-righteous rationalization any act performed under the auspices of "fighting terror". And how scary does it become when you realize that, ala "1984", the US government changes the meaning of the word "terrorist" to include any computer programmer (cyber-terrorist), anyone who protests the destruction of our ecological systems (eco-terrorist) and anyone who protests the abuse and misuse of our tax dollars (econo-terrorist). And how long will it be before our government starts targeting these pseudo-terrorists within our own borders? Sooner rather than later. I am 50 years old and have witnessed the rise and fall of totalitarian regimes across the entire planet, only to live long enough to witness the birth of Totalitarian America. Think not? I remember as a kid laughing about how a citizen in the USSR could not move from one place to another without his "papers". Try doing that in the US now. On foot. Public transportation; you name it. And how long do totalitarian regimes last? The world has come a long way since the Roman Empire. And this time, because of eco-dependency, when our totalitarian regime fails, the whole world falls with it.
If you are an American and you go to a foreign country and fight against Americans then you are a terrorist and you deserve to be shot like any other terrorist. I figure once you fight against Americans you should automatically lose your American citizenship. So for once, Eric Holder said something I totally agree with.
and who will decide who is a terrorist and who is not?Courts or E.Holder?
When you leave America to join a terrorist group then you are no longer a citizen and you get what you reap – period.
According to what due process? "i said so" statutes?
So then it is ok if there is no proof you joined a terrorist organization? Because by removing 'due process', this is exactly what Holder is saying.
Sorry the real law disagrees with you on how one revokes their citizenship status.
Exactly – look people, it's not about whether or not this guy "got what he deserved."
Certainly most people who get executed legally probably deserved it – the question is should the government have the power to execute its citizens. And more importantly, should they have the power to do so without a trial?
His father even took the white-house to court to try and stop this assassination
The US is not at war with Yemen and should not have the authority to use lethal force without due process.
"And when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up on my behalf" Be very, very careful what you wish for. The price of freedom is and always has been eternal vigilance.
The real issue of concern here that Holder does not talk about is that of so called "colateral damage." Does the targeting of anybody for death by drone justify the killing of people not so designated? What processes are in place to protect there civil liberties and their vary life, whether they are American or foreign citizens? How can these maimings and deaths be justified?
Actually the real concern is who decides who is a terrorist and even then being out on the list you will never now if you are or are not and no facts will be made public so you have no way of defending yourself. The Executive Branch is deciding if you are a terrorist or not, not our Judicial Branch.
I completely agree Attorney General Holder. As Americans, we are bound to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. An American citizen who willfully targets to kill our fellow Americans is no different from terrorists. And because terrorists deserve no leniency, they will receive none in return. They will be dispatched into the next world. That's right world, I'm an American, and I'm proud to be one. Proud.
"An American citizen who willfully targets to kill our fellow Americans is no different from terrorists."
LOL. You don't see the irony here? You really don't?
Ok, I will spell it out for you. What you are saying is that it is ok to target an American citizen because he targeted a fellow American. Get it now?
You want to defend the US Constitution but you want to deny American citizens due process in a court of law, thus violating the US Constitution.
So how about all the young kids in americas school system shooting students (Fellow Americans) wreaking terror to all who witness such events. Why are they judged? Why not just kill them? How about all the "killers" in american prisons, why have they not been killed but simply judged and sentenced behind bars?
You ma be proud but you haven't a clue what our Constitution guarantees all American Citizens and what Holder proposes isn't part of it! Those who'll give up liberty for security deserve neither.
Gosh darn it, don't you people know that trials are only for good guys like Charles Manson and John Gotti???
My neighbor just burned his flag. Can I kill him now? Yes? Thank you, Holder. I always hated that guy and his little yapper dog that kept pooping in my yard.
I think it's justified to kill anyone overseas who is plotting to kill Americans if we can't capture him or her(This is simply self-defense.). Terrorists at a foreign land should have no protection by the US constitution. I cheer this administration on dealing with terrorists more effectively and smartly than the previous one.
Hmmm. "If we can't capture him". Where in Holder's speech did he mention trying to capture him first?
It would be right here:
"But he said three conditions must exist. The U.S. government must have determined that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against America; capture of the suspect is not feasible; and the operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war."
You're not even an American cnn-bull!
If you were, you'd be pissed at losing your rights. So STFU!
Well, a good American, such the real George Washington, knows how to balance things. That's why Washington quit his presidency after 8 years. Only dumb Americans got confused on these issues after listening too much to fanatics such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al...
Wow, remind me not to go on vacation overseas. Simply a license to kill. I'm sure if they ever made a mistake, it would be promptly swept under the rug. And we all know the US government never makes mistakes.
And where did he ever say the targeted citizen had to be overseas? By his 3 conditions, it appears he is giving the green light globally (including within the U.S.).
It depends on the circumstances. If your overseas and hanging with those who want to hurt/kill Americans you made a choice. you're choice might lead to your getting killed. It my right to let my government protect me and my family. If your in this country you get the trial. If your not....i would not expect to get protected in Iran or Pakistan.
'Hanging out'. Really? I don't even have to be discussing terrorist acts? I don't even have to be planning anything? I don't even have to know they are terrorists? All I have to do is be 'hanging out' with them, like say, in a pub, and I can be 'targeted' for execution without trial?
You are a very scary person.
Hopefully 'your' going to be targeted by a grammar drone one day ;-p
If you say something the government doesn’t like, will that make you a terrorist?
Maybe not today, but I see it coming.
OUR government is already attacking free speech. I wrote an email to my ex-wife criticizing the family court for stealing my 50-50 rights and money... without due process... because I ran out of money. My ex-wife showed this email to the court. In retaliation, they suspended my rights to see my kid IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF "BRIDGES VS. CALIFORNIA". The FBI says, "Although they stole 1 million of your money... it's not like Bernie Madoff. We can't bother with your case." TRUE STPORY. It's happending already folks. Americans running our government are ALREADY violating our rights.
WAKE UP. Stop electing lawyers. AG Holder's opinion should serve as a wake up call. You will be shot IF these dishonest creeps define you as a threat. Period. No due process.
This is serious.
I'll just leave this right here so we can look back in a couple of years and wonder why America fell off the map: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdyzZWLVCgE
Holder is a "terrorist" for his role in arming foreign drug cartels who target our citizens. He should be indicted and prosecuted.........oh wait, no need to bother with a trial.
Well Said!
Sounds like you're suggesting someone shoot Holder. Answer the door when the FBI knocks. Don't run. They'll shoot you.
I am so glad that the Ministry of Information has clarified this. It's Double-plus good! I am glad to hear the Ministry of Love has the power to use such agressive loving techniques against the enemies of Oceania!
What about the other American killed with Al-Awaki?
Grow some balls and call it what it is: assassination.
We hated Bush for this kind of garbage, why do we tolerate it when it's coming from a blue president?
'We'? Don't lump the sane minded of us in with you lib bleeding hearts. I have no qualms with this.
I'm no "lib" you half-wit. I believe in the constitution. I can't stand this administration and I agree with what Franklin said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Because liberals are hypocrites
it would appear that way... i'm on all of the anti-war mailing lists. moveon, truthout etc – what are they doing now? where is the anti-war movement? does it make it easier for families to bury their kids coming back from these absurd wars if they have a blue sticker on the casket instead of a red one?
Wrong place Wrong time. B careful who u hang out with. It does not take a college education to figure it out.
nor should it take a law degree from harvard to question the constitutionality of actions like this – or the very dangerous precedent it sets.
No matter who or what u r, if u engage in activities that kill Americans in the U.S. or abroad then u suffer the consequences. If that means u r killed by our government then so be it. I agree w/Holder on this issue. But on another note I really don't think Holder can find his ass with both hands.
So if you are a murderer you do not deserve the right ot a trial? American or not? In America or not?
Is this what you are really saying?
In case you idiots haven't noticed this man has been hunted for over 10 years. There is no way in which to arrest him because he is outside of our boarders. Do you think another middle eastern country will arrest a fellow Muslim and turn him over to the Americans? The only way to arrest a man like that is to pick up his dead body.
Exactly.
lifesaver: just like with bin Laden? He was in a foreign country. You are saying there was no way we could have arrested him?
Oh, I know. Bin Laden was not an American citizen. However, if we had the opportunity (and we clearly did) to nab bin Laden alive from a foreign country, we could get anybody anywhere. Don't kid yourself.
New American Bill of Rights, coming soon:
Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Unless those in power consider you a terrorist.
Article V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Unless those in power consider you a terrorist.
Article VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Unless those in power consider you a terrorist.
Article VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Unless those in power consider you a terrorist.
Article VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Unless those in power consider you a terrorist.
More revisions expected soon...
Expect the definition of a "terrorist" to become more expansive. (Read up on the history of RICO for a preview of how this sort of thing works.)
So far left your right, so far right your left. Holer disarms America but opens the door for targeted killings of Americans. He is a power hog. Idealistic agendas lead to radical governments left or right.
The show trials after the Revolution should be hilarious. Imagine these people trying to defend themselves in an honest inquiry into their nefarious activities. Support the revoulution.
http://www.silvercirclemovie.com/
We are Americans damnit, we deserve a trial.
Ok. Next time this is an issue, they can just send you over to wherever-istan and you can try and bring the guy back for his trial.
That Guy: oh, I know the place you mean. Uzbekibekistanstan?
Or they can wait until you enter the United States and use the National Defense Authorization act and search, arrest and detain you without a warrant and with no cause....and of course you don't have the right to a lawyer, bail or even know what you've done..but it's okay, it'll never happen to an innocent person.
The naysayers and the ACLU make out like any American is subject to an attack on the whim of the CIA/Military. However, if you aren't running around in terrorist countries doing things you obviously shouldn't be doing, then you don't have anything to worry about. Keep those drones flying, and the hellfires dropping.
If by 'the naysayers', you mean those that believe that our government should follow the laws of our Constitution, where it says that all Americans have the right to a trial, then consider me a 'naysayer'.
The guy was a radical islamic militant. Why coddle him? By engaging the the activities he did, he forfeited any chance he may have had. I don't see why this is an issue. The guy was a douche. Now he isn't helping with anymore bad activities. I fail to see any downside.
If a man opens fire on a group of people and a police officer shoots him would you argue that this was wrong because the man was executed without a fair trail?
This situation is no different, this person is operating in another country with the intent to kill as many Americans as possible, the only reasonable way to deal with him is to kill him in the battle that he chose to be in. What is the other option? Send 1,000 Marines into Yemen to try to find him and arrest him? Do nothing and let him continue plotting terrorist attacks and potential kill more Americans?
Stop acting as if the US government has already arrested him but decided to put a bullet in his head while he was in his cell instead of giving him a trial. The way this situation is being handled isn't new. If an American joined the Nazis in WWII and was attacking US military he would be a target just as well without a 'fair trial'
We're not "coddling" him. He probably got what he deserved – but that doesn't mean the government should have the right to target an American citizen for killing without a trial.
Another problem i have with this is what if a Yemeni citizen living in the US was suspected of crimes against Yemen – would it be ok for Yemen to assassinate that individual here on US soil?
The state department claims Yemen cooperated with this strike – why didn't they just arrest him and ship him home?
All terrorists deserve a trial before they're executed.
Thank you, George. Well put.
How do you define a "terrorist country"?
Is it a country that harbors terrorists? That would include the Untied States...
United too
And who says these people are "radical terrorists"? Our government? The same government that said Iraq positively has WMDs? Yeah...I want them to be the ones decided on the fly if I'm a "terrorist" while on vacation. Perhaps that's the reason we have a right to trial as American citizens? So the government is forced to actually prove their case and present evidence instead of making "mistakes".
Nice. Govt can now exterminate any of us they decide to call terrorists. Welcome to the USSA.
I don't think that's it at all. If you aren't actively trying to plan attacks on the country you have little to worry about. Get over yourself.
That Guy: True. Just be very, very careful about who you talk to, what books you buy, what you say in your emails, and what you put on your Facebook page when you are visiting Europe or Asia this summer.
Otherwise, you may just get assassinated. Oops, I meant 'targeted'. My bad.
Skarphace: Yeah, but see I won't be buying any books on bomb making. I also won't be associating with anyone that has any ties to terrorism. I have nothing to hide in what I do or who I talk to, so I'm unconcerned.
Little to worry about except the chance to prove that you're innocent. No big deal.
So that guy is not unlike the nonJews in Germany who were ok with hitler since he was only gassing those awful Jews, and leaving the others alone.
Google up The Innocence Project, for example, to see what I'm getting at.
Our governments gone to far...if they label you a "Terrorist," you can be arrested, detained, searched by the military, and murdered without any proof...they just have to label you a terrorist. Rest assured, it won't belong before they broaden the term "Terrorist" Soon "Terrorist" will be anyone they can't legally arrest. This has gone WAY to far! Our government MUST be throttled back!
There's no "throttle back"... Lots of luck. Keep your mouth shut and behave yourself. SILENCE and bow to your new masters.
Funny how none of the libtards are calling him a war criminal! Oh I forgot all libtards are hypocrites.
I hate to inform you, but I will bet that the vast majority of those who agree with Holder's statements are neocons, not 'libtards'. Just look at how many pro-Holder comments there are here. Not many.
Americans who target other Americans are fair game. I am glad to see that the Democrat AG is OK with this concept. Since he is a Democrat, Mr. Holder will take far less crap from the liberal media for espousing this concept than if he was a Republican.
You miss a critical point. It is any american that the govt *claims* fits the description. They don't have to prove a thing. This is tyranny at its finest. And most Americans are fine with it. You deserve whatever you get.
This is probably the only time I have agreed with him.
Then you had better not travel abroad. If you do, then your rights to 'due process' have just ended. Good luck!
Humans are such sheep,at first we wouldn,t be water-boarding and torture American citizens now suddenly our government have the right to kill us just because they claim a citizen is a terrorist.
While the biggest terrorist organization on Earth is our own government.
Holder is the AG–He runs nothing but his mouth–And what he says is usually wrong–
Holder's a lawyer. They've never been much for due process. This "rational" makes perfect sense. After all, they've been operating OUR judicial system like an auction house for years.
In response to another article, a poster made the excellent point that we need to elect fewer lawyers to office in favor of engineers and scientists (and, someone added, doctors).
Lawyers are trained to start at the answer ("My client is innocent") and construct a rationale any way they can to prove that the answer is true.
In contrast, scientists (etc.) begin with a problem and look for a valid and workable solution. Isn't this just what we're looking for ?
Unless the Doctor, Scientist or Engineer works for the Federal Goverment, if so , they will never start with trying to solve the problem because that could be against American Interest and a national security risk
Funny how the ACLU has such an aversion to protecting the 2nd Amendment. I personally love all the Constitution; I don't pick & chose.
I agree. Everyone should have the right to have a put pair of bear arms on their wall.
Agreed–The ACLU is a bunch of DA's anyway. All they do is find reasons to go against Our Founding Fathers in what they meant when they wrote the Constitution–A bunch of intellectual do gooders who are really out of touch–
If you think this, the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization act are okay then you might as well be in 1980's Soviet Union. The Government has made it legal to wiretap, then send the military to your house to arrest, search and detain you with no warrant and for no reason, now if they don't catch you, they even made it legal to murder you...WOW!!!
We lost a war... obviously... and we're being converted to Chinese standards... they're just not telling us we lost the war.
Oh yes, in my neighborhood, they took away three people last night for saying Obama sucks. Black helicopters and all. Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
You would've made SGM if you weren't such a puppet!
U probably forgot to mention that these people were armed and were shouting Kill Obama
Right on Holder. Your the man.
Yeah... he's "the man" who eliminated hearings... and killed based on hearsay... great... How long you been a judge? You think like one: llke the village idiot.
Grammar lesson: you're=you are AND your=possessive.
grammar? who needs grammar? We'll alll be running for our lives in a few years when SOMEONE in this crooked government defines us as "A CREDIBLE THREAT" for commenting on a message board... without due process... shot... Welcome to Chinese standards in America... apparently... we've lost a war.
I am sorry, but this is way too much of a slippery slope. Arresting them, I agree with. Killing an American citizen abroad before they even have been put on trial? Ouch.
It is not long before the word 'abroad' is removed. What is the difference between an al Qaeda operative abroad and one in the US? Well, the one in the US is more dangerous, for one. Other than that, not much.
Then, it is not long before the words 'al Qaeda' is removed. What is the difference between a terrorist working for al Qaeda and one working for, as an example, Hamas? Not much.
Then, it is not long before the connection to any terrorist group is removed. What is the difference between a domestic terrorist working alone and one working for a known terrorist group? Not much.
Then, it is not long before the word 'terrorist' is more broadly defined. What is the difference between a known 'terrorist' and someone planning a mass killing or something else that could be considered terrorism? Not much.
Pretty soon, it wouldn't be considered assassination to kill any person who has threatened to kill somebody without due process, American or not and in America or not.
I sure hope that angry email you sent to your boss is not misinterpreted...
I agree. What Holder is doing is essentially removing "the trial", or "due process"... and he's a lawyer!!!! So now – based upon hearsay you can be assassinated. This is a tragic moment in American history.
I'm sixty-five and as far back as I can remember. Law Enforcement has always used deadly force in my neighborhoods and it was always called justified. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE NOW EXCEPT ITS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. IN N.Y. A BLACK MAN WAS SHOT OVER A HUNDRED TIMES BECAUSE THEY ASKED HIM FOR ID AND HE GAVE THEM HIS WALLET AND GUESS WHAT IT WAS CALLED JUSTIFIED
If you actually think what the Executive is doing is fine, please read the quote from Martin Niemoller below:
(Niemoller was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
–So, if you truly care about this country, then you should feel outrage when our President says that it is fine to kill Americans because we "know" they are terrorists.
In America, they came & arrested the Blacks& Arabs without due process and u did not speak out and they are still coming for the Blacks and none of u are speaking out.
Sad commentary on our "war on terrorism".
Funny. I thought the judicial system was expected to ensure DUE PROCESS in America. Now, HOLDER has seperated such accountability? Is he sane? Sounds like he needs a psych eval... and fast. What a mess.
One of the few times I agree with the AG. Go for it!
You think due process is not the responsibility of the judicial system? How long you been a family court judge "your honor?"
Yes, the Congress thats working for you just banned protests with HR 347, goodbye first amendment
Another GWB original idea brought to you by the fine dems and reps that occupy congress. I can't believe this got nearly unanimous support from both parties.
All enemies Foreign and Domestic....that is the oath taken...All enemies Foreign and Domestic!
Define 'enemy'. Anyone who is planning to kill an American? So somebody who is in America and is an American citizen but who is planning a murder? Kill them without trial?
This is what you are saying?
A more complete excerpt, though:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
supports, I think, the opinion of most of the posters, that trashing the Constitution for the sake of some ill-defined "war on terror" is a bad idea.
"The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." WHAHH???? Due process IS judicial process NIMROD. NICE TRY HOLDER. JUST RESIGN. You're an embarrassment to honest mankind.
GWB has a tear in his eye Mr. Holder. You've made him proud by continuing and expanding his policies.
Just as the constitution should never be interpreted in a way that would make it a suicide pact for Americans; the fact of citizenship should not be used as body armor for a terrorist. I defend very little of what Mr. Holder says or does, but this is one point on which he is absolutely correct.
Yeah... You're like "due process" has nothing to do with "judicial process?" Spoken like another dishonest lawyer who THRIVES on stealing rights and money in a corrupt judicial system now operating like an auction house. Yeah Yeah... no due process... because it's judicial. We heard you. LAWYERS ARE THE #1 THREAT TO AMERICA.
Nope, he is not. Go read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Then think about what Holder's position would mean if the President decided YOU were a terrorist,
Mr Brown... Well, I guess we're talking about the lesser of two evils. I have high regard for the constitution, but it is not, to me, something so holy that it should determine whether the cloak of citizenship should be used to hide a bloody dagger that may be plunging toward my child's chest. Risks of a wrong being committed? Indeed. And that, in my mind, is why we must take great care with whom we elect, because they make decisions and appointments that affect us dearly.
Don't get me wrong. If someone is convicted of terrorism, treason and the like, I will volunteer to kill them myself. I'll even spring for the bullets. But there has to be due process. And I agree that there are bigger criminals roaming free in the government and on Wall street. The war on terror is more of a diversion and funnel for profit of our war machine. Big business. Haha. We are pretty screwed (up.)
HR 347 bans protests, look it up, more scandalist
I don't have a problem with taking out the Al-Awlaki's of the world, but I do have a problem with the fact that the legal opinion is secret. There can be NO secret laws on the books in any free country, and that includes the US. Further, Holder, of all people, is not the person to determine what American values are. Letting guns walk into Mexico is certainly not a part of my value system and Holder's own investigation into Fast and Furious seems to be dying a slow death. The only time we hear about it is when Congress is twisting his arm. How long does it take to determine who said what and to whom? As long as necessary in an election year, I guess.
does that go for politic crooks as well
too bad it doesn't...one can only hope
My neighbor is a terrorist! Thank God it is legal to shot them!!! Heading over there now!
LOL! You made my night!
American citizens have the right to trial. Arrest should be attempted, if lethal resistance is offerred then and only then should lethal force be used. The right to trial by jury does not end at the border or end with ANY crime, even treason.
I completely agree with your entire statement.
Just curious, – if al Awlaki had been stripped of his citizenship would it make a difference? Would he be another Bin Laden then? Again just curious. Maybe he should have been tried in absentia first before they dropped a bomb on his head. Maybe?
We also have a constitutional right to face our accuser.
Mike, al Awalaki could have come to a trial, I am sure he would have been "invited". I am just curious if this would have made a difference. I have NO knowledge about the law, again would this have made a difference?
" The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." WHAHH???? Is he a double-speakster? Aren't they one in the same? How DOES DUE PROCESS not relate to judicial process? NICE TRY HOLDER. NOW RESIGN.
I'm kind of scratching my head over that as well. A trial by a judge or a jury of one's peers is generally considered to be a part of the "due process" we are all entitled to, whether it's a civil matter or a criminal one. While my opinion is that these are acts of war and therefore not a legal problem, when Holder starts up with such double-talk, it bothers me. This guy is capable of doing anything to us.
was Andrew Brietbart considered a domestic terrorist? He sure died rather mysteriously the day before releasing his goods lol... smells like NDAA black ops to me
I must have missed the Constitutional Law class where it was discussed that it is legal to kill American citizens without a trial. I am sure that was what Jefferson and Madison envisioned.
Look. Lawyers have stolen process. They now define "their terms" and force them on the rest of us WITHOUT legislative and executive branches of government. They have no effectively USURPED the three branches of government. Now – Try and change that... you see? You see the REAL MAFIA in America?
Our President thinks it's OK. Remember in November.
Unfortunately, all the other candidates aside from Ron Paul likely think that it is fine too.
From the way you phrased that you'd like to see something change as far as the administration, but before you stand up and yell too loud the last president started this, he also started a war on a lie and got 10,000 Americans killed or wounded. If anything should happen be remembered in November...THAT should be it.
Jon Huntsman, former candidate–where is he now?–"got it" as well. When most of the Republican candidates, in an early debate, were coming out foursquare in favor of waterboarding suspected terrorism suspects, he gave an eloquent and well-reasoned explanation of why that attitude is wrong and counterproductive.
The day Huntsman dropped out of the race was the beginning of the end for the Republican Party.
If you actually think what the Executive is doing is fine, please read the quote from Martin Niemoller below:
(Niemoller was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
--So, if you truly care about this country, then you should feel outrage when our President says that it is fine to kill Americans because we "know" they are terrorists.
or, if in doubt, we can torture...sorry, "harshly interrogate"...them into confessing.
What is it with appointing your incompetent clown friends to AG and then wonder why they embarrass you. The last two presidents both did it.
"Administrative" application of justice, whether execution, arrest, search, or imprisonment–as opposed to what our tattered Constitution prudishly refers to as "due process"–is the mark of a dictatorship.
Our family courts have usurped constititional rights already... stealing rights and money from loving parents GUISED as "due process" with the best interst of the child in mind. In reality – lawyers are stealing rights and money and can't be stopped. YOU ELECT THEM. Pat yourself on the back.
Mr. Holder... (1) Your performance as the US Atty General is dismal. (2) I disagree with you about killing / assassinating people and (3) why dont you come forward and admit guilt to Fast and Furious? Enjoy your position while you got it because you are history in November!
Your comments sound like a threat against AG Holder. Expect a loud knock on your door. Answer it. Don't run. They'll shoot you in the back.
So sayeth the black version of Alberto Gonzalez.
An power the president claims can't be tested before a court which allows the president alone to secretly decide a person is a terrorist without having to provide any evidence or go before any court and provides for the killing of said person based on uncontestable conditions which are passed or failed at the president's discretion alone.
Sounds like extrajudicial assassination to me.
Will political opponents be next?
How are these Muslim terrorists American?
Yes they have taken advantage of our soft immigration system and obtained US "citizenship", but they don't have an ounce of loyalty for this nation.
Just drone'em.
Deport them
Massive and gross exploitation of the "anchor" baby clause... Perfect way for them to grow US born terrorists...
Editor check: "assassination" is spelled with two double "s"
You get what you get when you do what you do.
We may kill anyone,
anywhere, at any time,
for any reason,
or no reason at all.
Our might makes us right,
and woe to any who may oppose us.
We who are chosen as God's disciples of rightous vengence
to smite the wicked and the just alike
indiscriminately in his name. Amen.
Yeah, sounds a lot like what we are supposedly fighting to stop.
Somewhere Osama bin Laden is smiling.
Yeah his children got a paid education in the U.S. for his dedicated service.
Naw, OBL died months before 911 from marfans syndrome!!! and there is and was the ability to control those plains remotely wich Some have already stipulated was what actually happened...
The anger against the killing of someone who is poised to kill Americans is amazing. Perhaps people would like to wait until many Americans are killed before doing something. Perhaps secretly taking them out of the foreign county and back on American soil where they could be tried for treason would make more sense.
The idea that Americans were responsible for 9/11 does not fly. The people responsible were terrorists with a mission. They made an indelible mark on American history but they were not American citizens.
So, it's OK for the President to decide that you should be killed, and ZAP! Is that what you're saying?
Wouldn't an American Terrorist be an American citizen that supplies foreign terrorists with guns that end up killing Americans?
Wouldn't said terrorist be subject to a no-trial assassination by our government?
Twisted web forming these days...
Hasn't it been our own government who has supplied foreign terrorists with guns? By your standards we have quite a few of our own military, and political figures to start killing. Why do we forget our own history so quickly?
Yes indeed it would!
He, like Obama and most of Congress, is a traitor.
"Our tragedy is that 9/11 was a crime on American people done by Americans"
Take off your tin foil hat.
tell the engineers "http://www.ae911truth.org"
In my neighborhood the terrorists wear police uniforms, this argument justifies cop killers. Hooray!
"Killing people in a sovereign country is not only an International Crime, but also an act of Barbarism." So then, the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto in the Solomon Islands during WWII was an International Crime (sic) and an act of Barbarism (sic)? 9/11 was an inside job? You are a paranoid schizophrenic with no grasp of reality or history. And you're ugly too.
No going back now boys and girls. HR 347 just gutted the first amendment. NDAA says YOU have no rights to a fair trial. Only 3 nay votes in the House, Ron Paul was one of them. Vote all the pigs out, ALL OF THEM. I am ashamed of this country, and you the brainwashed masses applaud their every action. There is a storm on the horizon, the hour is late. Take back your country, WAKE UP!!!!!!!
If we "woke" up like you.... we'd still be contemplating if we landed on the moon, if 9/11 was an inside job and if the Loch Ness monster truly exists
i don't care much for holder or this administration
but I agree with going after enemies of the state where ever they lay their heads
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
LOL! Bush was going to kill that American dolt also, but I don't remember the right complaining then.
I don't remember Bush killing any American citizens without trial.
What is one more immoral action to do the killing in the U.S.A. ? Once a war criminal , always a war criminal.You may not know this , but killing people in a sovereign country is not only an International Crime , but also an act of Barbarism. Our tragedy is that 9/11 was a crime on American people done by Americans and you , Eric , need to prosecute them – I will give you a hint : Bush, Cheney , Gulliani . The charge -TREASON There should be plenty of evidence still left.The Wall Street crooks need to go to jail- I knew you were busy trying to get arms away from people with Fast and Furious , but how long do you think Occupy Wall Street people are going to wait ? If they decide to march when it warms up , they may get very angry at our government for not putting the criminals from Wall Street in jail. Obama lost all credibility long ago and your office as well. Criminals are giving themselves bonuses , you guys are killing our border agents- what is going on ? You put a shoplifter in jail and a guy that stole billions is above the Law ????
About 911 being the work of Americans; I think you are definitely the minority opinion on that.
Thank you rightospeak. For all you others that are in support of indiscriminately killing anybody labeled as an "enemy of the state," are you really prepared to accept the extension of that logic to it's logical conclusion? Is it ok to carry out a drone attack on a suspected terrorist that is holed up in, say London or Hong Kong, or maybe Denver or Chicago? Obviously, I think everyone would be appalled at that idea and all the pundits, Right or Left, would be in their usual hypocritical uproar. But now Pakistan, hey Pakistan is perfect for drone attacks because I mean, they're poor, they're Muslim, and really, what are they going to do about it? Or on the other hand, how much hell would break loose if Pakistan carried out a drone attack on Pakistanis that were living in the US?
I'm baffled that in this day and age, the wool is still over everybody's eyes. America is not the parent, or babysitter, or cop for the rest of the world. America should start to figure out what the golden rule means and stop hiding behind "national security." Until everyone figures it out and starts to see through the BS that comes out of Washington and the media (sorry CNN, that includes you), America will never become the great nation that it has the potential to be.