March 5th, 2012
05:30 PM ET

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."

Follow Security Clearance on Twitter


Filed under: Al Qaeda • Anwar al-Awlaki • AQAP • drones • Intelligence • Justice Department • Living With Terror • Terrorism • Yemen
soundoff (1,415 Responses)
  1. Dan

    MIght I remind everyone that the penalty for treason is death. If you are an American and you assist or work with the enemy, you are a guilty of treason.

    I care not what nationality someone is. If you work with the enemy, you should be put to death. Screw trials. Military tribunal. He didn't commit a civil crime, he committed a crime against the nation... High Treason...

    On a side note, if I see anyone attacking US soldiers or our allies in theatre, they earn a bullet from my rifle. I sure as heck am not going to ask or care where they live or come from...

    March 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      Treason just like any other criminal offense in the US is put on trial. We put the people who gave the soviets nuclear technology on trial we can put terrorists on trial as well.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Reply
  2. bbcblogger

    Holder is the biggest terrorist. He has turned the US into any one of those south american Juntas.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
  3. Lost Liberties

    So we can put terrorist non-citizens on trial on in our civillian courts, but we assassinate our own citizens without a trial. Does this sound backwards to anyone else?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • hz

      i agree completely however mr.holder as well as all the obama administration officials lack any common sense

      March 5, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Reply
    • dakota2000

      You don't really understand do you? It was inconvenient to capture al-allaki. So, when things are not convenient, you can officially ignore the constitution.

      March 7, 2012 at 2:59 am | Reply
  4. wonderswhy

    why does everyone forget that this "american" (not my opinion that he is) was an illegal enemy combatant. He was a man who turned his back on his country an sided with the enemy in war. Technically if he was killed on the battlefield then hes a battlefield casualty. The battlefield is no longer a field in West Virginia, or outside a German town. Wake up people! Al Qaida doesn't use any tactics that are associated with the law of war, yet we still follow the geneva convetions when we capture them. We do everything in our power to stay within international law, yet they piss on it and you defend them. It wasn't an assissination it was combat. People die in combat, and leaders are targeted.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      That would make sense if he wasn't the one being specifically targeted.

      This is more about our rights as American citizens. The government simply went above the law and executed someone without due process which we are all entitled to even if we turn our backs against the constitution.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Reply
  5. hz

    no matter what you tried to call it, it is still assassination.
    maybe it's justified, maybe it's not since we public don't know the detail behind the list, however call it something else doesn't change the fact it is assassination of us citizens.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
  6. Meki60

    does this mean its okay to kill American border patrol agents?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Reply
    • joetheplummer

      no. get a clue.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Reply
  7. Scott

    If we don't value the lives of Americans... why should actual terrorists? Even the most dispicable American has a right to a trial, because being dispicable is in the eye of the beholder...

    March 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Reply
  8. ObamaNoMore

    I happily cast my vote in 2008 thinking Obama was gonna change things from Bush. He did. It's worse. Everything from the economy to the way he handles terrorists and the like. So many broken promises, the world was gonna love us. Can't ever vote for this man that appoints "czars" and makes decisions like a dictator. This isn't my country anymore, so sad.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Reply
    • Meki60

      I could not agree with you more, he is a disaster

      March 5, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
      • Tom

        You are both idiots... must be republicans!!!

        March 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
  9. PhilG

    Although I don't like this-I benefit from it's results by not dying in an attack on Washington D.C. where I work as a dirt worker everyday pretty much.

    It's hard for me to say to the governement-It's wrong to kill an American whose only intent is to kill me and as many of us Americans as they can get too.

    This is a vicous world and only the strong and the quick survive.

    You can't nice your way to survival tomorrow.

    You have to fight for it-or more accurately have someone else fight for you to provide it-which is what all Americans are lucky enough to have.

    Just don't be an American and go overseas and go to work with people that want to kill Americans and you'll be o.k.

    Otherwise,enjoy your missile sandwich with a side of bullets.

    Made in The U.S.A.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Reply
    • Your mother

      GTFO

      March 5, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
      • terroridiots

        YUM! YUM!

        March 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
  10. Debbie

    Whatever it takes to protect the lives of American citizens, both Naturalized and those who have immigrated here and later became citizens, should be done. Those at risk of losing their lives are not true and loyal Americans. They gave their loyalty to violent entities such as al-Queda by choosing to plot deadly attacks and endanger the lives of Americans whose only "crimes" were boarding a jet or going to work in buildings targeted to have planes flown into them.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Reply
    • meisme

      Debbie,

      I think the point to be made to the USA is suppose to be "and what about the innocent lives the USA takes". Is the life of a child in iraq or afgahnistan that is blow apart while we gun down a high value target any less important than an american life?

      I think that is the point. The USA is trying to change the way of life in the middle east that has existed for 2000 plus years !!! We are not going to change what is, nor is it our place to change what is. The US gov and atrocities they have committed right here in north america in the last 150 years have nor moral ground to tell any country what they should or shouldn't do in their country period. That dog don't hunt

      March 5, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Reply
    • meisme

      I would also remind that in fact we created al-queda we hired them trained them armed them and the screwed them over and then tried to kill them. Lets not pretend like they just appeared and decided to come after us. I would also remind that if you are over 50 and vote then you also probably help vote in the administration that did all of the above.

      March 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Reply
  11. Scott from NH

    I've never heard of any system of justice from a civilized nation that allows murder without trial. Eric Holder, George W. Bush and Barack Obama spit on our constitution and values, then threw them out the window. Only a tiny handful of nations executed anyone in 2011. To do so from a drone, without a trial puts us in basically the same class as Iran and North Korea.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Reply
  12. Nowletssee

    And to think our founding fathers were once labeled enemies of the state and marked for death for taking up arms against their home country. I wonder what they would think of this...

    March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Reply
  13. Jimh77

    Hey Holder, you want to take out terrorists, Take out the WBC and do the US a favor.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Reply
  14. meisme

    a little scary indeed. First of all the word terrorist is so blown out of proportion. If you ask some people in Afghanistan who the terrorist are, they would say the USA. Same with iraq and many other countries. Second, this is a war!!! So, since when in the rules of engagement are officers allowed to be specifically targeted? Third, the word combatant has a very wide range. Now days you do not have to carry a gun to be an enemy of a military or government. Is the person who helps finance a war against you not also your enemy and in the sense a combatant? President Obama does not carry a gun but if the USA is at war, is he also not a combatant?

    I see our government starting to crawl like snakes and it makes me very sad to be an american. My family members serving as I did do not need to die protecting our "interests". Military personnel should only die protecting our "homeland" and that would mean someone is attacking us/invading us. True enough people are trying daily and it's a daunting task, but as the saying goes, we reap what we sew. Maybe, just maybe if we kept our noses out of peoples business and quit dropping bombs on peoples countries and killing their families, we wouldn't be such a big target? I don't see terrorist trying to blow up china or russia

    March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      Russia fractured when the cold war ended. There is a lot of crime and terrorist acts happening over there against them you just don't hear about it. The same is with China. You don't hear about it because for one both of those country's governments are rather quite ruthless towards those who act out against the state. Especially with China.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
      • meisme

        I think if there wa any type of al queda style or organized attack on either russia or china that resulted in serious death tolls we would hear about it via the web within hours if not minutes. You can't control someone taking video on a phone and sending it across the world anymore

        March 5, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • dakota2000

      Yeb, a my grand mothers aunts and uncles were wiped out in the civil war fight for freedom.
      My father served in the WWII. I just missed serving in the vietnam war.

      Why did 2.5 Million american DIE over a piece of paper, our constitution. Doesn't their sacrifice mean anything?

      Or were they all dupes?

      March 7, 2012 at 3:03 am | Reply
  15. Andrew

    I have a mixed opinion on this but ultimately I think the guy should of been attempted to be brought in and put on trial instead of yes assassinated.

    The way I see if yes the guy could be claimed to be a murderer and all the evidence could be pointing towards him being one but the police don't enlist the military and send a cruise missile into that guy's house. No, police use a certain level of force and don't execute anyone unless they are threatening others while trying to confront them.

    I would be more appealing to this choice if it was a fire fight when the CIA, FBI, US military or whatever fricken organization was trying to apprehend him but they decided to take a route that does clearly violate this guy's rights. Just because he is labeled a terrorist doesn't mean we instantly void constitutional rights.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • meisme

      I would have to agree. This was obviously a clear violation of due process of an american citizen. Lets be real, he didn't kill anyone (he might have plotted to try). Timothy Mcvay blew up an entire FBI building but they captured him, they did NOT level his house along with anyone in it with a drone strike.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Reply
  16. Defend America

    Wow. Just how much dope do you people smoke? I'll tell ya what, you want to bring the al-Awlaki types in for questioning and a trial? Then go out to the country where they operate and bring them back yourself. Just make sure you advise your next of kin where your will is located.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      Al-Waki is not the only US Citizen this administration has assassinated. Please inform yourself people!!!!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Reply
    • meisme

      I am a disabled veteran and because I am I can say this. America created it's own enemies !!! We played the games around the world strong arming people and being basically thugs !!! We drop bombs and shoot missiles killing innocent people to get one person and with every bullet and every bomb we create 100 more enemies who are tired of being bullied by big bad america. It's my fault for assisting & it's all our faults for not governing our government better. But rest assured it will get worse if we don't put our gov in check and tell em to keep their nose out of other peoples business. 9/11 is NOT the worst thing that our enemies could do to us

      March 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Reply
      • ceciel

        am a disabled veteran and because I am I can say this

        me too ... take your meds jerkoff

        March 6, 2012 at 2:18 am |
      • Gregg B

        Ease up on the name calling. it makes you look less intelligent and definitely not worth reading.

        March 6, 2012 at 2:34 am |
  17. Founders1791

    Constitution of the United States (Ratified 1791)

    5th Amendment

    "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."

    8th Amendment

    "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    ----

    If ANY United States Citizens is TARGETED/MURDERED "without a trial" by our Government, those officials have VIOLATED The Constitution and deprived that citizen of DUE PROCESS.

    Barrack Hussein Obama Junior and his Attorney General, Eric Himpton Holder Junior, are subverting the rights of our citizens.

    The Obama Administration IS OUT OF CONTROL and MUST be reigned in or removed.

    HOW'S THAT HOPE AND CHANGE LIBERALS?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      They're not going to blow you apart for Islamic rants on the internet. However, in the case of Al-Awlaki, I have NO problem with an American who is clear has clear as day taken up arms against our government, being killed. If I decided to abandon the states and join Al-Qaeda or Hamas, I do not have ANY rights to anything in our constitution.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Reply
      • bbcblogger

        What about his son, also a US Citizen and a teenager, who didn't do anything you 'claim'

        March 5, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
      • Founders1791

        YOU ARE A DESPOTIC SCUM BAG that the Founders of our county DIED to escape from.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
      • bbclogger

        Why? was his son also attacked by drones?

        March 5, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • Founders1791

        bbcloger....my post refers to Mike

        March 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • bbcblogger

      I'm so ashamed I voted for Obama.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Reply
      • bbclogger

        How did you do that? Taliban Terrorists are not allowed to vote in US elections.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
      • bbcblogger

        So I tried to uphold the US Constitution which guarantees every US Citizen due process, and suddenly i'm a Taliban?

        March 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Steve Fielder

      President Obama is using the same Executive authority against terrorists today that Abe Lincoln used against Johnny Reb Confederate terrorists in 1861. Anyone elected to a government office, whether state or Federal, swears to defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By virtue of his birth, Anwar Al Awlaki was an American citizen. When he decided to wage war against his own American countrymen, Al Awlaki became a rebel against the U.S. Government, and the United States; putting himself into the same category as all those men who took up arms against the U.S. Government in 1861. Al Awlaki was a modern-day Middle Eastern "Johnny Reb" waging war against his fellow Americans during an act of unconstitutional rebellion against the lawful government of the United States. Al Awlaki was, by U.S. law, a traitor. Since his capture by Yemeni law-enforcement officials was impossible, and since he posed an imminent threat to the United States, taking out Al Awlaki was perfectly justified.......

      March 6, 2012 at 2:02 am | Reply
      • Gregg B

        LOL. Johnny Reb as you put it was not one person.So, back to the Constitution.

        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. 1

        Due process cannot be nor should be suspended on an AG's OR Presidents say so because they are relying on laws that are extra constitutional. They've been cited elsewhere on this thread. Your comparison between the Civil War and al lAwlaki is an exaggeration and not even a reasonable comparison to put it succinctly. There is NO similarity.Lincoln was not going to dissolve the Union and he viewed it as an act of civil disobedience. MAJOR difference.
        The Souths intentions were clear at Fort Sumter.

        However, I digress. But, you would necessarily HAVE to ask the same of yourself if placed in Awlaki's shoes. You're pretty quick to judge with someone else's rights. That makes you dangerous and foolish.

        March 6, 2012 at 2:33 am |
      • dondijon

        Those Johnny Rebs You refer to were protecting the Constitution, Lincoln wanted more taxes and started stripping the Southern States of the constitutional rights that were in force at that time and it was that Congress and President Lincon that went against The supreme Court in Violation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), in which it was Stated Congress and the President Lacked that Authority. If reviseted and enforced this Ruling would negate any Claim either Holder or Obama might have to Citizenship. It is also the longest standing case to have been granted Ceteraori and was Affirmed!!!

        March 7, 2012 at 6:24 am |
    • dakota2000

      I am a liberal and I hate what obama is doing. He fooled everyone. I regret voting or him and my wife and I have at least one fight a week over what a terrible president Obama is turning out to be.

      Bush, in his worst moments, did not systematically target US citizens (to my knowledge) like Obama is doing.

      Don't pin this on liberals. He is not one of ours.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:06 am | Reply
  18. SeeNN1

    So many of you are against the killing of this terrorist quick to jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon... yet, you wouldn't bat an eye if the FBI shot an American bank robber right here in the USA. Why don't you check out good ole Anwar's videos on youtube in which he calls for jihad against YOU. Guess you shed tears when Bin Laden got the same fate too. Stop letting politics and what's hot on the news cloud your simple minds.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Reply
    • Founders1791

      A bank robber is 'in the act of a crime' and you ignorantly compare that with a Citizen walking the streets of another country? Truly pathetic analysis. IT IS MURDER.

      Al Alawki (Born in New Mexico) was riding in an automobile in Yemen, with no declared war between either country, no published or imminent threat between America and Yemen.

      NO TRIAL, NO TRIBUNAL, NOTHING that even slightly resembles 'due process clause' in the Constitution and our 5th Amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS BILL OF RIGHTS

      March 5, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
      • Pugachev

        Yemen was at war with the al qeada organization. Al qeada was at war with the United States. the US didn't attack Yemen, they attacked an enemy commander on Yemeni soil, that Yemeni had already declared an enemy combatant and wanted him dead or alive. We gave him to them dead.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
      • Founders1791

        Pugachev,

        ARE YOU INSANE – this is about the United States Constitution NOT YEMENI SOVEREIGNTY. FACTS MATTER.......NO UNITED STATES TRIAL, TRIBUNAL, or F'n' PROOF, NO DECLARATIONS OF WAR. NOTHING

        YOU ARE SHILLING FOR A CRIMINAL OBAMA AND HOLDER...READ THE CONSTITUTION.....a few posts up.

        March 5, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
      • Ed Hayden

        Congress authorized combat – lethal force against Al Quaida. The man was a member of Al Quaida, which makes him an enemy combatant, like the deluded Americans who died in Germany during WW2. Some were radio hosts that had propaganda shows. One died in bombing over Berlin. When it is safe enough for American troops to capture this character I am certain they would have loved to debrief him. However, as an enemy combatant in the company of other known enemies he was a legitimate war target. It falls under Aticle, Section 3 of the Constitution. He offered aid and comfort to the enemy, and I would safely say that there were more than two witnesses that saw his youtube videos claiming his Al Quaida membership, and extolling the vitues of jihad against the US. In the case of treason it is not stated as necessary to execute a traitor per the rules. I think this specific section was written because of Benedict Arnold.

        March 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
  19. mo adimus

    I agree with all of you who find this to be an unthinkable position. We are morally (and fiscally) bankrupt. Where is the ACLU on this? We need to prosecute for murder.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Reply
  20. Tim

    Well said, Mr Cheney....err Holder

    March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Reply
    • ?.

      they are ust going to kill us (jewish banksters). aipac is trying to pass a gag law on the us so they can't negotiate with diplomacy.

      aljazeera . com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011114635741836 . html

      March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Reply
      • ?.

        Lobbying for a US war with Iran, AIPAC is pushing a bill that would prohibit diplomacy between the two nations.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
  21. Rick

    I love people that enjoy all the liberties of being FREE without any sacrifices and bitch about how it is done! I apologize in advance for those who have...but the majority of you people have given nothing!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
  22. Ted Ward

    Woot! First Guantanamo still open and getting a new astro-turf soccer field, and now this! Talk about a double standard! If W had done/said this the lib/democrat media would have gone human rights sactimoniously ballistic. I smell some Hi-pock-rissy, thank you very much!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Reply
  23. HZ

    I can't believe some people even want to debate this. Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was wanted, knew he was considered a dangerous terrorist and he launched terrorist attacks on the U.S. If he didn't want to get killed by a missile he should have walked himself to the nearest U.S. embasy and surrendered. He chose his own end.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      What about his teen age son, also a US Citizen?

      And where is the evidence of all you're condemning him for. The government can just kill us based on their word? really? is that the country you want to live in?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Reply
      • HZ

        bbcblogger, how is this any different than if a cop pulls you over in your car, tells you to put your hands up and you refuse to? And in fact you start putitng your hands under your shirt and saying threatning things to the cop like, 'I'm going to shoot you'. That cop can shoot you dead and figure out if you were lying or not later. It's perfectly legal. It does not matter that a few cops are bad cops or whether or not you have a gun. If you're smart you don't argue with the cop, you follow instructions. If you feel your constituional rights were violated you can always sue later... Now what this self-proclaimed terrorist did is way worse than the motorists stopped in my scenario. He had zero right to anything except to turn himself in.

        March 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Jim

      Agree. It's frustrating to see the Constitutional scholars here siding with a guy patronizing a terrorist camp in Yemen, and to hear him given such a benefit of the doubt by true Americans. What is going on here? We're not talking about a guy stopped on the street and searched unlawfully. This man took extreme steps in furtherance of his Al-Qaeda and Anti-West agenda.

      March 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
  24. Relive history

    All it takes is legislative and judicial branch folks buying in on such arguments to make a Putin or Al-Assad out of a Bush or Obama. Are we destined to repeat history?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Reply
    • HZ

      Not really. The whole U.S. system of government is based on the premise that the Judiciary has no enforcement powers (no army or police forces under it's command) so from day one of the founding of the U.S. a bad president could have launched a coup and taken over the government or violated whatever laws he wanted to. The judges can only look at what he does after the fact. So just don't elect the wrong person and everything works fine.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Reply
  25. justicefor7

    URGENT – Please read more about VERIZON. Things they don't want the public to know! I was tormented by racial comments that were ignored, then racially discriminated against and wrongfully terminated for making complaints about the racial injustice.

    Please visit my Blog Page to see what Verizon did to my family. What they have done to my family, and continue to do is horrific. Today they still will not accept responsibility. So I will not stop this FIGHT for JUSTICE! It has been 8 years and I refuse to give up, but I need your help to spread my message.

    You can read my stories about what VERIZON did to my family by GOOGLING:
    • “Verizon Raped My Family – Cover Letter”
    • “Verizon Raped My Family – Press Release”
    • “Verizon Raped My Family – Requesting Criminal Punishment”

    From there you can access the other letters through the recent post.

    I am a man who has stood up against racism, discrimination, bullying, harassment, hostile environment, belittlement, threats, and retaliation, all while working for Verizon Communications, as they conspired to terminate me.

    I am a man who is trying to hold his family together while in the process of trying to fight for my rights to be heard. I am a man who has brought up his family on morals, discipline, character, hard work, dedication and conviction to believe that good things happen to good people. I am a man who could not be more proud of my family for all their trust and faith in my conviction. I am man who is a proud servant in my community and deserves to be heard, as I am begging for JUSTICE!

    I have learned that: “If you have no Money, A lot of Power, unlimited amount of Connection and resources, you have no chance at receiving justice within our country!

    Neal W. Dias

    March 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Reply
    • Steve1959

      I did read your letter, and I have to say, if you can't be a lot more specific than what you've got written down there, you don't stand a chance. Quite frankly, I can't picture an old man and woman threatening you, a Marine, with bodily injury. That's just laughable. You talk about all the accolades you received from your work with the various diversity programs in Verizon and then talk about how Verizon is racist. Sounds to me like it's the other way around.

      March 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Reply
      • dakota2000

        Post traumatic stress anyone?

        March 7, 2012 at 3:08 am |
  26. Jim

    Are you all serious? Here we have "Americans" attempting – if not succeeding – in taking American lives (yours and mine), and your first instinct is to question how the Constitution is implicated? This makes me sick and makes me wonder how we fight enemies abroad when so many right at home justify the acts of these terrorists....until they actually terrorize of course. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot sit idly and react to terrorism, as that policy of Clinton led us to the worst act on American soil since Pearl Harbor. I doubt many of you really believe that the US will use this to willy-nilly "knock-off" citizens. Rather, it seems as if you just feel the need to complain and whine. You remind me of my Park Slope liberal neighbors who are horrified at police racism, but protest vehemently the placement of a Detention Center of innocent-until-proven-guilty individuals down the street. Get a grip on reality. These "Americans" are really our enemies. The question is: What are you?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      So who did this guy kiII? Names? Proof? I know its hard for simpletons to understand, but just because some gov't worker says something doesn't mean its accurate... thats why in a civilized society we have trials, to look at the evidence, and determine guilt before we start going around kiIIing citizens with gov't force.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Reply
      • Jim

        Far be it for me to call you a simpleton, but as a federal prosecutor I can assure you our Constitution provides for and in some cases even requires the non-prosecution and/or acquittal of individuals who actually committed crimes based upon their actions and actions of state actors. As the Supreme Court has held, better for one hundred innocent to go free than one guilty to go to jail. This is fine for petty criminals and the like. I'd like to believe that the evidence against the "Americans" accused of terrorist actions referred to in this article is substantive enough to justify the drastic response outlined. Trials take YEARS.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
      • Jim

        Sorry – cut off. Trials take years, which may be too long to prevent another 9/11. Also, keep in mind, that this administration has required the reading of Miranda to American suspects before interrogation. Anybody who would (or even could) be wrongly accused of international terrorism needs to reassess their life as well as the choices and friends they have associated themselves with.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • Ron

        Uh HuH, Thats why Casy Anthony got away with murder because someone wanted to catch a boat trip!!!

        March 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • Scott

        Well Jim, as a federal prosecutor, you're the last one anyone should listen to when it comes to deciding that people don't need trials... Trials are to protect the people from individuals like you.

        March 5, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  27. Mudhutter

    What scares me is that the state made the determination of both who is the terrorist AND their guilt. Police don't determine who is the criminal and execute them on the spot. Sure, police can shoot a criminal if they pull out a gun, but al-Awlaki wasn't point a gun at anyone. The constitution was created to protect all Americans, including criminals, from over zealous actions of the government.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Reply
    • massbytes

      I am sure the Syrian leadership is using the same logic. We have determined you are dangerous to us and therefore we are going to kill you.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
    • Ron

      Your not too intelligent are you!!!!!

      March 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Reply
  28. Dan

    I agree with the attorney general on this one, but I still think that somebody should shoot him in the butt with one of the fast and furious weapons that he didn't know about.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Reply
  29. Carl, Secaucus, NJ

    It says that the paper that explains their legal reasoning is classified secret. If the legal reasoning is sound, why shouldn't the public be able to see it? Isn't this a policy that we have the right to judge as citizens, just as we would judge energy policy, education policy, etc.? His argument seems to be kind of circular–assassinations are illegal, but we reason that what we are doing is legal, therefore what we are doing cannot be assassination.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Reply
  30. countriboi

    We began this madness with the incredible overreaction to the horrific attacks of 9/11. At that time we flailed about blindly at enemies real and imagined and instituted a new protector, the Department of Homeland Security. The rest is history.
    What we are seeing now is the direct, almost straight line consequence of those decisions. Powers were assumed, legal justifications were assembled and the whole host of civil liberties abuses began to cascade out of control. It continues to this day.
    We should not be surprised.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Reply
  31. 5x

    Murder the guilty.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Reply
  32. Pugachev

    A viable military target on foreign soil in an organization that has declared war on the United States of America and our allies in Yemen, at the behest and invitation of Yemen, was killed by a lawful act of war. The issue is what? That a traitor died? Who cares. It was all legal and obviously so before Holder came in to point out logic in it.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Reply
    • oneSTARman

      Dick Cheney is a TRAITOR because he disclosed the name of an active CIA Officer – putting the Lives of her Field Agents in Peril. Geo. Bush and the United States CONGRESS are TRAITORS to the CONSTITUTION because of the USA Patriot Act. Someone who TALKS to people about not liking American foreign Policy? I'm not as sure.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Reply
      • Pugachev

        "didn't like America's foreign policy" ? Are you joking or oblivious? He was a regional commander in al qeada in Yemen, he preached to the 9/11 attackers, and helped plan the underwear bomber's attack. He was a charismatic leader who promoted islamic extremism and called for violence and terror to be inflicted on innocent civilians. He was the Goebbels of that organization, and he deserved to be hit with a cruise missile.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  33. mistamista

    Mr. Holder is correct when he says "Some have called such operations.assassinations". The killing of an American of any walk of life is murder.

    And since I know that the Repubic-derps will bring up "justified killing", but if that is the case, why can a mother who KNOWS her unborn child will be a terrorist in the near future not have an abortion to prevent such a terrorist?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Reply
    • MATTY13

      Not a Repub..or whatever it is you call them. This guy was not an American. He gave that up. He has no rights.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Reply
    • Txboy

      You are thinking way too ar into this. The example you gave is not even close to what this article is epaking of.

      We are talking about someone who planned/carried out the largest scale attack on US soil. You want to defend someone like that. Yea, murder is murder, but is this not justified. You want off of our fellow Americans who died on 9/11 to have died in vein, to have died for nothing, becuaase you want to defend the man who was responsible. You want to give him another chance, a slap on the freaking hand. President Obama did the right thing, yet gets down sized because of it. If President Obama would have done nothing. You still would be running your mouth.

      That TERRORIST got what he deserved. In fact, he got the easy way out. So look at all the details before you defend a terrorist and a mass murder of American citizens on our OWN SOIL.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Reply
    • Lawl

      Lol, "knows her unborn child will be a terrorist in the near future"???

      So, the infant is going to be a terrorist, is that it?

      Lol I don't agree with abortion, nor do I agree with giving the executive branch the power to execute citizens in this manner

      March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • Mr. Logic

      You are about the dumbest person that I have read a so called comment from, I wish I had you in front of me to pimp slap your ignorance.... just go and f yourself..... maybe you should have been an abortion, stupid people like yourself shouldn't waist good air right?............. d u m b f u c k

      March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • SeeNN1

      @ mistamista "And since I know that the Repubic-derps will bring up "justified killing", but if that is the case, why can a mother who KNOWS her unborn child will be a terrorist in the near future not have an abortion to prevent such a terrorist?"

      Oh how I wish your very own mom could have seen the future and hoovered your lil ass out.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Reply
  34. oneSTARman

    RICHARD NIXON -Said of the Watergate Plumbers, "It's NOT Illegal if the PRESIDENT Orders It" – THAT was the Beginning of the END of Amerika's Rule of LAW.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Reply
  35. Ed Hayden

    If Benedict Arnold was shot in battle wearing his British uniform I wonder if Washington would have felt bad about not giving him a trial?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      I guess this might actually make some sort of sense if this guy was even on a battlefield. Which he wasn't.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Reply
      • Pugachev

        Yemen is a battlefield, as the Yemeni government who is putting down an Al Queda backed insurgency.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
      • Scott

        If Yemen is having a little civil conflict... how does that translate into a US battlefield?

        March 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
      • Pugachev

        Because are both fighting enemies of the same organization, ie Al Qaeda in Yemen. Yemen declared open war against the organization in 2010, and we have been partners ever since. It is mutually beneficial for us to wipe this organization out, make it unable to sustain itself or inflict attacks on the Yemeni or American people. If you join an organization that has declared war against the United States as a military planner and leader, you are a viable military target.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
      • Ed Hayden

        Al Queda is a lawfully declared enemy of the U.S. The Congress authorized combat action against Al Queda. That makes the man an enemy combatant by his own choice.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Roy

      Benedict Arnold did not kill innocent people of all races and creeds as those who were murdered in the WTC. Your analogy is absurd, twisted and rediculous!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Reply
      • Ed Hayden

        You misunderstood. Wahington wanted Arnold hung but he escaped. His accomplice though was caught and hung.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
      • dondijon

        You mean like the interim leader of Libya a recognizable face from W's deck of Al Queda Card's and Obama's Giving aid to the Libian Rebles???

        March 7, 2012 at 7:02 am |
    • Nowletssee

      Benedict Arnold is your example? You do understand that all of them at that time were Brtish subjects that swore an allegience to the crown right? Technically at that time, Washington was the traitor. Only becasue we won and later formed our own government did our founding fathers graduate from traitor to founding fathers.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Reply
  36. Scott

    The most likely truth is, this guy was probably a CIA asset, probably had a lot of embarrasing details about the CIA that would have come out in a trial and so for a very dirty organization to save face, this administration has shredded the constitution. The 6th amendment gives every US citizen a right to a PUBLIC trial, to face his accusers, to present evidence and witness, etc. To claim the constitution doesn't guarrentee a trial is ridiculous. It says it in the bill of rights plain as day!!!!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Reply
    • oneSTARman

      Wouldn't it be GREAT if the Constitution had NOT been superseded by the USA Patriot Act

      March 5, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Reply
  37. oddjob2234

    Yes, of course it isn't assassination. It doesn't violate that person's right to life, does it? Oh no, certainly not. If Eric Holder decides to label you a "terrorist," without having to present even a shred of evidence to back that up, he can order your death, without trial.

    Clearly premeditatedly killing someone couldn't possibly be "assassination," could it? After all, check the definition, it doesn't fit at all, does it, Mr. Holder?

    assassinate – to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Reply
    • Boes73

      The issue is how do you extradite someone like them when you do not have treaty in place? Do you just hope that justice will prevail through a system that does not work? Everyone knows that Al Capone was a murderer but he could only be bought to trial for tax evasion. You are dealing with a different type of criminal element that requires an extreme response. What do you want to do - talk to him? Hug him till he repents???

      March 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Reply
  38. Matt

    I applaud the Obama administration's position on this issue, and this is coming from someone who has never agreed with anything Eric Holder has said before.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
  39. rec

    OOPS......SORRY...WE ONLY THOUGHT YOU WERE A TERRARIST........MY BAD......BETER LUCK IN YOUR NEXT LIFE CITIZEN!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
  40. Jerry

    Isn't this the same bunch who were claiming the foreign fighters held at GITMO were entitled to a fair trial in US courts?What a treat this bunch turned out to be. Must be hard for their kids when they learn 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • b

      I thought the same thing. Welcome to the wonderful world of the liberal hypocrites.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Reply
  41. tony

    Israel is planning attacks against Iran. Which incidentally has the legitimate right to develop it's own Nuclear power. Israel OTOH has secretly developed Nuclear weapons, against US Law and by conducting espionage against the US. So anyone at risk from Israel assassinating Israel's leaders would seem legal to Holder.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • MATTY13

      There is no U.S. Law that reads Israel can't have nuclear weapons.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
    • Roy

      The leaders of Iran have said. 1) Israel is like a cancer which must be cut out and they will push it into the sea and2) a world without America is possible..These are quotes from their leaders....Israel has never made any such threats -in fact nO Other country has made such heinous threats against the USA or Israel. So think before you make such distorted statements and recognize that Iran is a threat ..even their fellow Muslim neighbor Saudia Arabia has said that for Iran to have nukes is unacceptable and has never protested Israel having same.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Reply
  42. Bob G.

    If an American tries to kill his fellow Americans, that person should be taken out (killed) just like anybody else. We have to protect ourselves. We have a lot of Muslims in our country and most of them don' t run around killing people. They're good people. The terrorists are the problem.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • Boes73

      Agree!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Reply
    • Nowletssee

      And how do you define "terrorist"? Anyone who resides in Waco? Ruby Ridge? Who's to say they have to belong to Al Queda to get on the government hit list? This is a pretty broad definition he is using for justification to use deadly force.

      March 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Reply
  43. Tougeaux

    If you are working with the enemy of the US after 10 years of authorized war and you are a US citizen and discover that you have been on the named enemy combatant kill list for over 9 months, if you want to live you should consider contacting the local US Embassy and make arrangements to turn yourself in rather than produce/release a You Tube on the glory of martyrdom. If you dont because you dont trust the Judicial system, which isnt really a stretch, then yeah youre fucked. Probably should have thought this through before you joined up with the sworn enemy of your country.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Reply
  44. BobM

    Why is this any different than someone joining the enemy forces, putting on their uniform and taking up arms against us in a war? Traitors were legitimately killed in previous wars.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      After a trial.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Except this guy was just driving down the road, in YEMEN, in a SUV... how do you connect that with being on a battlefield shooting at US troops?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Reply
  45. us101

    Entering Dangerous times my fellow citizens, Next speak againt your government policies,and be targeted,,give it time and this will come,,little by little you will conform

    March 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      and they know who you are, because they can eavesdrop on your cellphones and monitor the internet. If you only knew...

      March 5, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Reply
    • glorydays

      Yep.... FISA, Whistleblowers, NDAA, GITMO....This administration is in it up to their ears.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Reply
  46. tony

    Mega Oil corporations rule – anyway they want.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Reply
  47. bbcblogger

    Lets not forget it was also Eric Holder the one that armed the mexican cartels to kill US Border Patrol Agents

    March 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  48. tcaros

    I never liked Holder. He cowered out of prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
    Now he wants to justify assaissination.
    The problem is once you involve the CIA things get out of control. They will start killing out of vengeance, criminal enterprise, etc... Don't give people that much power.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
    • And..

      You are supporting terorrism, right? Aren't you?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Reply
  49. Ramesh Dave

    If an American Citizen is a traitor and a terrorist, he/she has to be treated as such. This person should be dealt with like an enemy soldier. If Obama did not do anything, people will call him soft against terrorist, If he goes after them the same as Osama Bin Laddin, people have problem with that too. Basically, these people have other issues bothering him being the President. They do not want to openly admit it.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      Where is the evidence? That's why we have courts of laws. So it can be proven. Or what you want us to take the word of this Tyrant Junta?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Reply
      • Gary

        Right – so lets call up these American citizens and ask them to return to the US to face trial. Or better yet, let's call up the Yemeni President and ask him to arrest them and extradite them to the US. Gimme a break. It's all Obama hatred that is being spewed here. If we tried to diplomatically bring these guys back to the US for a trial, you morons would be on here writing how soft he is on terrorism.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Scott

      And if Obama and Holder want to 'accuse' him of being a terrorist, then according to the 6th amendment, he's entitled to a PUBLIC trial, to call witness, face his accusers, etc. Thats how we find out if an AMERICAN committed a crime. We don't just murder Americans cause someone says "oh he's bad".

      March 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Reply
      • MATTY13

        And you expect him to get a lawyer and come to the US for trial. This guy was no American anyway. He gave that up. He has/had no rights. None.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Dan mason

      So it is not ok when bush did it, because he is a republican, but ok when Obama dose it because he is a democrat, politicts at its best

      March 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Reply
  50. Corey

    (2 years from now)

    It's not an assassination to kill an American on US soil who is suspected of being a terrorist.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      Next ones to be labeled as terrorists are the peaceful Occupy protesters. We need more drones.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Reply
      • Boes73

        Yayyyyyyyyy! Oh, you're kidding – never mind.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • Scott

      There was no conviction by jury nor any evidence presented to a jury of any crimes... this guy was nothing BUT a 'suspected terrorist'. 2 years from now is already here.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Reply
  51. Jerry

    So, pouring water on their face is bad, but killing them is OK? Ethical subjectivism.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Evidently kiIIing is ok, only if they're Americans. Otherwise they get trials.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  52. PD Gupta

    If Eric Holder is right about what he has said in his speech, then Syria's president is doing just the right things with a view to save his country and his citizens by killing other citizens who are nothing but terrorists in their own country. Is Mr. holder listening?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Reply
  53. Grant

    I'm kind of surprised after reading so many good comments here, but certainly in a good way. His b.s. interpretation of the 5th amendment in order to justify killing American citizens without due process is just that: a b.s. interpretation.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
    • Jerry

      Good point, Grant!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  54. iamacamera

    Why would anyone be surprised that this Attorney General would take this position? Of course he will say it's legal and constitutional. Because he, and the Great Barama, has to appear tough on terrorists and on crime. It is an election year after all. So which is the greater intrusion into the civil liberties of the citizenry; the President who use warantless wiretaps to spy on non-citizens who were frequenting terrorist websites, or the Attorney General who eliminates, with extreme prejudice, citizens who are suspected of being terrorists? Hmmmmmmm!!!!! tough question. The very fact that this has gone on, or is anticipated should be grounds to remove this Attorney General. If they have done this then he should be charged as an accomplice to murder. Even I, a conservative right wing war monger see that this is wrong.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
    • iamacamera

      PS and BTW. President Bush had full Congressional approval in the warrantless wiretaps. This Pres does not have Congressional approval, or Constitutional basis to do what E-Wreck Holder, the feckless, A.G want to do, or has done.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  55. Scott

    Hmmm, here is the 6th amendment:
    "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. "

    Sounds like he had a right to a trial to me.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
  56. Rob

    It seems that not only was the target suspected of being aligned with a terrorist group, he had proclaimed himself so aligned. John Walker Lindh proclaimed that he was merely a muslim who got caught up in a bad situation. He is in prison, as he should be. The target at issue is neutralized, as he should be.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
  57. Mark

    WHAT type of nonsense is this that people should care in what way those that declare war on the USA die? especially if they are publiclly plotting to kill innocent people because of a mental "god" complex, which in reality is more more serving satan obviously...and especially if they are converted jihadists killing in the name of some murdering false prophet. let's all be thankful these apes get put down in ANYWAY possible so we can live happily thereafter.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Reply
  58. nik green

    Imagine the reciprocal happening: for example – CIA or special forces personnel in a foreign nation being targeted and killed, the State Department would be bleating about *terrorism*. Well... that is what Holder has just approved: state sponsored terrorism. No less. Pot, kettle.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
    • tony

      That's right.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
  59. Todd

    The Judicial process has to be part of the Due process. The goverment should not have the right to take the Judicial process away. What evidence the government has to set aside the judicial system? This is not a stae police.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  60. bobdevo

    This worthy opinion from Eric Holder, whose last job in private practice before being picked as AG was defending Chiquita Brands, who ADMITTED hiring right wing death squads to assassinate labor organizers in Central and South America. The man does have some experience explaining away murder.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  61. Richard

    Pragmatism at its worst. All for self interest. Very disturbing.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  62. Mark G.

    Does this not then set a precedent that other nations could do the same thing on US soil? I don`t think US authourities would be to happy about that.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  63. glorydays

    Murder is murder.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  64. Keith

    So, Obama can_assassinate American citizens, that HE deems to be a threat, without any civil, legal, or due process rights, while at the same time he gives those same civil, legal, and due process rights to foreign, captured_Mooslim terrorists (i.e., Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber, Gitmo detainees) and then builds them a $750,000 soccer field?

    Will some please impeach this Constitution trampling POS?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      I completely agree. Obama has shown no evidence, and he is killing us citizens. What is the difference between him and the citizens he is killing?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Well according to holder, the guy got due process cause Obama decided he was a terrorist... I know, scary stuff.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
    • Txboy

      Keith, don't be stubborn and miss what's right in your face. The man was a TERRORIST. What part of that do you NOT understand. That man was responsible for conducting attacks on YOUR fellow Americans. If you have sympathy for him and other extremist, then maybe you should give up your citizenship and move to Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan and protest against your Country.

      Your what we call a Sympathizer!!!!!!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Reply
      • Scott

        Interesting... so where is the proof? Why is the justification classified? See normal a public trial would be had, evidence presented and a jury of citizens would have decided his fate.. .but hey who needs all that, lets just declare him a "terrorist" cause then we can kiII him with out all the pesky requirements to actually prove he did something wrong.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
      • Texas Star

        You are what we call a sheeple.

        March 5, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
      • dondijon

        and when our Goverment ignors our own law's of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, to commit the Assassination we become no better than they!!! I feel disinclined to look it up right now, but, Our Constitution states that ALL PERSONS irregaurdless of Citizenship have the right of this protection of the are subjected to any legal issue by our Government in it's teritories or Holdings. This includes occupied territories During Time of War!!! I served Ten Years in the Army and most of my Ancestors likewise. many have died to protect these very RIGHTS that are in The Constitution, this make thier death's irrelevent!!!

        March 7, 2012 at 7:34 am |
  65. Freedom enforcer

    Simple solution: USA military should put out a list of the war criminals they are after, and ask these people to turn themselves in. If not, you're on your own as "Wanted - dead or alive". Let these little ants think twice before they spit at an elephant.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  66. Joe

    And a terrorist is . . . anyone the ruling Republicrat Junta SAYS is one. . . . My understanding is that our so-called leaders swore oaths to uphold the Constitution, and only those laws consistent with the Constitution. Therefore, Holder, and all of his bought-and-paid-for cronies in Washington, from 'both' parties are . . . traitors . . . and terrorists. . . .
    http://www.republicratjunta.com

    March 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  67. Me

    Cops, SWAT and others federal agencies do kill americans were thinking that they can't take them alive, and that the so called americans are a threat to others. I am not sure why everyone is complaining about the government doing the same. If you were taken hostage, would you want the cops to have no other way but to capture the hostage taker alive?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      yes, but he didn't take any hostages. And what is more important, and you seem to be missing the point about: Where is their evidence!

      They can kill us without any evidence?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Reply
      • Uncle Musty

        If we only had something like that habeas corpus thing here in the US. Oh yea, we did, until Bush suspended it and Obama kept it suspended.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • KR

      Wow! Great minds really do think alike. (ME)

      March 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Reply
  68. Giant_Patriot

    It's just as legal as a police officer shooting someone in any street in America. Get over it. If police had Predator drones, they would use them here as well against violent criminals.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
    • Bob Brown

      Actually, the police are *getting* drones. Do not amass too many parking tickets!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
    • ScaryAmericanPolicy

      I disagree. Police usually try to get the person to lay their weapons down first. In Holder's world, we'll just kill you.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Reply
    • Nah

      One big difference is that the police are only shooting people who are an immediate danger to others. They're not out seeking out purported criminals and killing them.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
  69. Bob

    al-Awaki should have been tried in his absence and any sentence carried out according to law.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
    • Texas Star

      Ah, but that would have required actually producing evidence of something other than First Amendment protected activity which the government has steadfastly refused to do. Even now they will not produce the "secret evidence" or the "secret interpretation" of the "secret law" which authorizes the "secret list" of non-assassinations.

      March 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Reply
  70. randomkid

    This is the same as killing an American fighting for the opposing side in a war...well this is exactly that.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
    • Bob Brown

      No, actually, it isn't. Instead of killing "enemy soldiers," we picked out a particular person and murdered him while he was driving down the road.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
      • bbcblogger

        And what about his teenage son? Who, by the way was also a US citizen and was killed in a separate drone attack. what evidence they had he was a terrorist? Was he also condemned in a 'secret' jury trial?

        March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
  71. bbcblogger

    what about the teenage son, who was also a US Citizen and killed in a different drone attack. Was he also a terrorist. What kind of country are we turning out to be? I will not vote for Obama, I don't care who the other candidate is. I will not vote for Obama. I can't even recognize my own country.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Reply
    • Kevin

      That is a bit bold. What makes you believe so strongly that these other candidates for presidency wouldn't do the same?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Reply
    • Gunny

      Go to Ground Zero in NYC and see if you can recognize the World Trade Center.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Reply
      • bbcblogger

        Stop making that as an excuse. I absolutely reject the idea of turning the US into a Tyrannical country simply because you are afraid.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
  72. Robert

    And how do we keep from sliding down the slippery slope until, 30 years from now, US citizens on our own soil will be eligible for this same process?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Nixon had to resign because he had knowledge of a burgulary of another party's office... which really amounts to a school snatching the mascot of another.... this guy is murdering US citizens without trial and is telling us to our face its legal... I doubt it'll be 30 years before it happens here.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  73. Scott

    "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

    WOW... The Attorney General of the United States says the constitution doesn't give US citizens a RIGHT to a TRIAL before the gov't kiIIs them? Just... WOW

    March 5, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      The bending of the Constitution just keeps on happening. Where will it end. Bush opened the floodgates and I wonder what it will take to close them.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Reply
    • ScaryAmericanPolicy

      Is he insane? Are these "concepts" impeachable?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Reply
    • Gunny

      I think the AG just said if US citizens choose to commit acts of WAR against this country from foreign soil they can expect a tap on the shoulder from a missile.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Reply
    • Jack Jersawitz

      Holder's dishonesty is clear. Due process in American law has always meant process through the judicial system, i.e., indictment and trial in a court.

      Holder and his boss Obama, if we were to go back a few years to the Cold War and McCarthyism, would have asserted that supporters of communism were a threat and could be killed. The only difference is the alleged beliefs of those targeted.

      It will not be long before strikers in "critical industries" will be termed terrorists and therefore be subject to killing outside of due process.

      It is clear that we have a government that itself is setting up the conditions where American citizens, being terrorized by these lawless threats of state conducted assassinations, will have to begin considering there own self defense, i.e., the need to bring down this government with a socialist revolution since capitalism in crisis, as before – Hitler, Franco, etc. – is proving the only answer to it is to bring it down by violent revolution, violent because this government is already illegally using violence and by Holder's word threatening more. The only answer to a violent government is defensive violent revolution.

      Already, in the last few years we have seen instances where police have used violence against strikers. Holder makes clear that is going to get worse.

      The organized working class, the most powerful social force in this country, must take lessons from these "friends of labor" whom they helped to elect, and must organize their own political party, a labor party with a socialist program.

      In response to the obvious violent threats of the state acting outside the law the unions and their labor party must begin to organize in their own defense. Using the Fourth Amendment right to bear arms and to form "a well regulated militia" they must begin to obtain arms and ammunition and to engage ex-military union members to train their members in their proper and safe use. Any time the police attempt to shut down their picket lines or otherwise interfere with lawful union activities pickets on picket lines must bear those arms in self defense.

      Jack Jersawitz
      404-892-1238
      bigjackjj@yahoo.com

      March 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
  74. Black Six

    When Bush and Cheney did this to protect the American people the libs screamed for a War Crimes Trial. Now Obummer and Holder have Killed Quaddifi and many others and the left stands silent. What a messed up double standard the left wing media has. Now this Fluke Broad Wants tax payers to pay for gender Reassignment too? Come on people. HOLDER NEEDS TO RESIGN OR BE IMPEACHED!! THE LEFT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. LOOK AT THE UNEMPLOYMENT. LOOK AT THE GAS PRICES. When gas hit 3.50 people wanted to lynch Bush, now what? Its up to 5.00 a gallon but that is OK? Come on people use your heads. Are you all that brainwashed? Everything that Obama and the left wanted to prosecute Bush for they have done TEN FOLD. Bush creates the patriot act to protect the American People. It stretched the constitution to PROTECT US. Now Obama ignores the constitution on a daily basis and it is OK?!?!?!?! It is obviously not to protect the interests or the national security of America!!!!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Reply
    • Ivan

      I think it's cute you think there's a "left" in America.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Reply
    • Crow

      The Patriot Act and the unneeded Department of Homeland Security were created by the GOP not the Dems. Any illegal powers held by the state are firmly grounded in that act and through that agency. To blame this on the Dems is an exercise in stupidity. This abuse of power was prepared and served on a silver platter by President Butch the Liar.

      The only way to correct this is to end the Patriot Act and dismantle the DHS. Both things are in the power of the republican legislature not the democrats. Let's put blame where it squarely belongs.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Reply
      • Texas Star

        I think it's cute you think there is a difference between the Repubs and the Dems. Two arms of the War Party.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
  75. Steven

    "who are suspected of plotting" Wonder whose definitions of "suspect" and "plotting" we are using and could those definitions quietly change. How many none terrorists are on the "no fly list?" Are they all suspects. If some innocent people end up not flying due to the list, wonder if some innocent will be killed. Who monitors those who may abuse their power?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Reply
    • Crow

      We have only to look back at the Communist hearings, the killing of Vietnam protesters and the torture of water boarding to see where abuse of power can take us. Nothing was done about that and nothing will be done about this latest foray in government abuse of power. Why? Because a nation that chooses safety over freedom deserves neither safety or freedom. This statement was true over 200 yrs. ago and is true now.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
  76. SlowDownUSA

    How does our government define a terrorist? When our government gives itself power to kill anyone they can call a terrorist that gets a bit scary! We the people need more power over our government when it comes to giving permissions over who we as a nation decide to start killing. We can’t as a nation say we are at war with “terrorism”. That’s too much of an open ended statement to start killing people over. We The People need more power over OUR government when it comes to giving permissions of who we can kill and why.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      They are just slightly bending our civil rights. Do not worry nothing bad can happen.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
      • Gunny

        On 9/11/2001 a lot of people's civil rights were violated. Do you speak for them too?

        March 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
  77. Jonathan

    How can he possibly say that killing anyone, even a a U.S. citizen in a FOREIGN COUNTRY is "lawful???" Even if it was lawful under American law it would be irrelevant because our laws don't apply on foreign soil. Ha Gov't is a trip. When are we going to stop this insanity. These imperialistic wars our government keeps getting us into.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
  78. anti_zionist

    America is the pawn of Israeli bankers....

    No enemy is off limits to zionist aggression...

    March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
    • davenyusa

      Learn that in your GED classes?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Reply
      • anti_zionist

        Na.. u mom whispered it in my ear...

        I'm SURE will recall it.....

        But seriously everybody..its ok to hate such a terrorist state as Israel.

        Everybody else does!

        March 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Gunny

      I'm worrying about the bankers in Charlotte, NC. Bank of America is more of a threat to me than ANYONE in Israel

      March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Reply
  79. Billy Bob

    It seems that the only difference between Obama and an unelected dictator is volume.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Reply
  80. George

    I agree, it is just sentencing

    March 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Reply
  81. JWR

    Did I miss something? Here are some bozos who claim to be American "citizens" (show me the birth certificates) and denounced America and here we are debating on them being killed. They were influential in the killing of American soldiers here in America and the attempt to blow up a plane by way of the underwear bomber. Not only did they declare war on America but at the very least conspired to mass murder.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Reply
    • Bob Brown

      So... arrest them, try them, and fry them. What the Obama administration has done is murder them.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Reply
      • Gunny

        I got it now, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have had the Coast Guard arrest them.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Al

      JWR,

      I think you did miss something, irrespective of what these men and women have done, the US government does not have any legal right to invade another country and kill a suspect inside that country. I am positive you would not look kindly upon any other government sending in a drone into United States airspace, to kill a suspect of their own? For him to public announce to the world that the USA can legally do this stinks of arrogance and ignorance. Statements like these only strengthens the argument that the USA thinks it can do what it wants, when it wants with total impunity. These men and women need to be brought to justice using the power of law, NOT the power of the sword.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Reply
      • anti_zionist

        Agreed.

        Wise citizen..

        March 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
      • lala

        USA never harbor terrorists/criminals from other states like Yemen did to Bin Laden and his cohorts

        March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
      • AB WSB

        I guess you forgot about 9/11

        March 5, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  82. Karen

    I believe Holder is a terrorist, now what?

    March 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      Than you could argue, self defense

      March 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Reply
    • Gunny

      I believe you are an idiot, now what? I guess what WE believe is irrelevant, except that I'm right and your not.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Reply
    • Jack Jersawitz

      Karen,
      You are right. Holder is a terrorist who is threatening any American, let alone non-citizens with whom he and his master Obama disagree, with violence, with murder.

      There must be a attorney who would take your case and seek to force the courts to indict them. There are many of us out here who would join you in such an action because by his words Holder, with Obama, is threatening, sans due process, all of us. He has the state power, the means, and apparently the will. That is terrorism.
      j.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Reply
  83. Homer

    Obama quietly renews the Patriot Act (that he promised to abolish) then sets up this goon to justify killing Americans without a trial. Hopey Changie, anyone?
    Screaming liberals are all of a sudden nowhere to be found. Amazing!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Reply
    • bbcblogger

      You are very wrong about this. Some of the most liberal journalists and bloggers have been screaming about Holder killing US citizens without due process for months. The media is finally picking up. I have been posting here on CNN every time there's an article about Holder. This is so wrong. I'm ashamed to say I voted for Obama.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Reply
  84. Bob Brown

    Let's see now... we pick a particular American citizen (not "the enemy soldiers") and set out to kill him. 'Splain me again how that's not assassination. Holder clearly thinks we're all maroons.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Reply
    • Homer

      This administration and high level liberals all think we are morons that can't be trusted to even take care of ourselves. "Move along, little peasant. We know what's best for you"

      March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
    • Gunny

      Give me your number Bob, and I'll make sure you get a call the next time there is classified info that explains why, so that you'll be in the loop.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
  85. FHTEX

    Ultimately, it only matters what Eric Holder says as long as he is the attorney general. But this former Obama supporter is not going to vote for his boss in November so, if I am like millions of others, then he won't be the attorney general for much longer!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Reply
    • Giant_Patriot

      And which Republican do you support? Your "I'm not voting for Obama" line holds little weight in an election year where there are no other Progressives running. Unless, you're actually a Conservative who is trying to get other Obama supporters to not vote – because it is the ONLY way a Republican will win this year.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Reply
      • Bob

        Rasmussen reports has Ron Paul beating Obama head to head.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
  86. Josh

    If Obama wants to be re-elected, he'd best have Eric Holder STFU about this unconstitutional hogwash. It's bad enough that the U.S. government treats foreigners as less than human-as in, with no rights. If american citizens are fair game to their own tyranny, i'm sure that there will be certain surprises in store for all of us. 😉

    March 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Reply
  87. Jerry

    This moron's (Holder) got to go, before he gets more Americans killed. How can our clueless president continue to support him? Oops! I forgot that for this president scoring political points is more important that saving American lives.

    Hypocrisy knows no mounds this current administration. Mr. president, thanks for making America the bail out nation of the world.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Reply
    • Gunny

      Osama Bin Laden agress with you. Oh...no...he doesn't does he.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Reply
  88. AL

    I do hope that he has the views for those involved in the fast and furious gun running scheme that is the cause why an American Border Patrol officer was killed with a weapon that those people gave the Mexicans.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Reply
  89. davenyusa

    "Holder: Killing American terrorists isn't assassination"
    And if THAT doesn't curdle your blood, you have gone wayyyy too far to the left!

    March 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Reply
  90. Karen

    He arms Mexican drug cartels, of course he'll think it's ok to assassinate Americans.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Reply
  91. Ed

    Alberto ok's torture and it's the way things should be. This guy ok's killing a known terrorist and the teacons are howlin mad about it. You people are batty.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Reply
    • Bob Brown

      Can't think of anything more persuasive than name calling?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
    • dc

      .... and what about when he decides he doesn't like you, Ed.............

      March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  92. dcshipman

    When a governmant can set aside due process for it's citizens, even one; what else does it blur before becoming a tyrannical government for itself and not for "We the People"?
    Now they will say they can't release the specifics of his imminent threat assessment because it's a national security matter. Our covert actions in the past has brought this threat to us and killed our people. Hence, the original national security threat is our own government. Operation Ajax, Fast and Furious Guns, Operation Northwoods, Iran-Contras are a few examples.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Reply
    • lgm111b

      Sounds like a plan to circumvent the Constitution and destroy one's enemies,
      don't get on o bum a's slit list!

      March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Reply
  93. Jordan

    So if a U.S. citizen is SUSPECTED of plotting to kill Americans, its okay to assassinate them. Note that he was suspected based on actions the US government "claims" he took, not a jury based on facts. What about US citizens who are plotting to kill someone in a city as in a premeditated murder? They don't get a trial either, they should be assassinated based on the judgement and discretion of the king, I mean president. Rapists pose a threat to our national security too, so King Obama should issue death warrants for each of them too. What about people who oppose the "big government" political party? At what point will they be considered "terrorists" and will it be necessary to assassinate them for threading the big government party's national security. What a shame this country has become..

    March 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
    • Bob Brown

      That's what the President and the Attorney General have said. (Remember in November.)

      March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      Hey, we thought Iraq had nucs, that is why we invaded them. Our intelligence people do not make mistakes ... at least many. If one or two innocent people are "killed" it is worth it to protect America.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Reply
      • anti_zionist

        Your unspeakably retarded.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
      • Texas Star

        @Anti-zionist – I think you missed the tag.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
  94. QuietStormX

    What, go to court and or wait until an attack before you can target someone planing attacks of America. If they are American they are on in the same. I see no issue or problem? The Father who didn't want his terrorest son targeted for death is just crazy to me. Did he know of his son????

    March 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
  95. fletcher reynolds

    I like the blood thirsty approach. KILL EM ALL. Let GOD sort them out.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
  96. cityguy

    When you see him, just yell "HE IS COMING RIGHT AT ME!" then you can shoot em, because then its in self defense... (South Park)

    March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Reply
  97. jo

    Wrong...wrong...wrong....This is a 'bottomless pit'.....No one is immune....NO ONE.

    March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Reply
    • Balmy Monday

      what makes you think you where ever immune?

      March 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Reply
    • Constitution FIrst

      At one time we had protection of the Constitution but the people traded that for freebies from the feds and for so called security. Globalist want our Constitution dead.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Reply
  98. Teddyg

    A secure, confident U.S. administration would not need to hide behind a law like this. A confident, righteous one would know when a trial is appropriate and when war powers are needed to stop someone.

    March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Reply
    • markinfl

      Generally a trial requires a defendant actually in court. This was an active terrorist.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Reply
      • anti_zionist

        No. His son, a 16 year old, was murdered ad well.

        Hush your obscene nonsense

        March 5, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
      • Texas Star

        Based on ... secret evidence which is ... no evidence whatsoever.

        March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  99. us101

    Sounds like malitias will and can now be assasinated, dangerous translations could come out of all this

    March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Reply
  100. rell69

    How can Anyone be dumb enough to think its a good idea to allow politicians and bureaucrats to decide what American citizens its ok to kill, instead of jurys and courts? Are you people really so stu pid as to believe they will Not abuse the power? Why in the hell do you think we Needed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if politicians are so trustworthy? Is your ignorance of history, or human nature, so vast? Wake Up!

    March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Reply
    • markinfl

      Uh yeah.... Next thing you know their going to send a missile down the slippery slope into into Lindsay Lohan's car.

      March 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply to Dorthea Furblur


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.