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
This is a republican wet dream. First Patriot Act, now they can kill Americans and soon the Republican bill to give the Feds the right to remove a US citizens citizenship will be passed. This will give the government the ability to shoot first then coverup later.
Except its the Dems who are pulling the trigger....typical lib poster, can't accept responsibility for your actions.
Haven't the dems already shot first then covered it up.... Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious.
Hey Holder, are you considered a terrorist if you arm drug cartels and foreign nations and then stand by while they k!ll our border agents?
I guess it is ok to send guns to them also, Holder didn't mind doing that in Mexico.
Holder has no brain but he is black. That is why he is where he is. Still a slave mentality, not civilized nor qualified. If you are black, Asian or Hispanic you got it made. If you are while and smart like I am you get the shaft from Oncle Sam. It is time to leave the farm and head off shore. F.. up USA.
Good point, The [W]ar onDrugs was approved by Congress and the cartels are Enemies of the State, therefore Mr.Holder and most Likely Mr.Obama has given aid to a knowen enemy during time of War. This by Definition is an act of Treason...
i made a p00py this morning
Police shoot and kill people on the street without trial if they pose a danger to the area. Why should a terrorist be any different?
Mr. Holder, where is the declaration of war? Mr. Holder said that the "operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war". It seems that since you do not have that declaration from the only body that can – Congress – maybe we should notify the Attorney General about the administrative appointee that broke the law, resulting in per-meditated murder of an American citizen, which by the way, Mr. Holder has no statute of limitations. Ready for your retirement in jail?
I'm pretty sure we are at war with al Qaeda. al-Awlaki was a member of al Qaeda, makes him a legitimate target. Don't want to get blown up in your pick-up truck on the way to Piggly Wiggly don't join a terrorist group that we are at war with.
We are NOT at "war" with al Qaeda. There is no formal declaration of war. Congress is limited to funding such appropriations to two years as directed in the Constitution. This whole "war on terror" is a sham.
So then, what you are saying is that it is a one sided war, al Qaeda declared war on us but we are not at war with them, interesting concept.
Hezbollah is at war with everything the US stands for, so is Hamas, the PLO, and al the other 50 terrorists organizations listed by the government. It's just an unconstitutional use of our money to fund the war machine.
If you are going to declare "war" then do it by the laws which were created for you to operate. If the rules in which to operate don't work, then get them changed and agreed on by the States. We've spent billions and nothing has changed.
Sorry the government can't just go make the rules up as they go. The rules are there to protect us, yet they don't follow them, and spend money we don't have. They are sacrificing the blood of our young soldiers with no objective, other than shoot the boogy man.
Did Bush have a congressional approval for invading Iraq? I don't think so !
Actually both houses agreed to support invasion.
Not only did both houses agree and vote in favor of war with Iraq, they did it based on intelligence that was developed by the Clinton administration. Remember how Clinton complained that Bush wasn't giving him due credit for the intelligence given to Congress during these votes? To wit Bush said "sure most of this info did come from the Clinton administration.....including all the WMD intelligence." Yet when no WMD's were found Bush never tried to pass the buck...he took responsibility. Can't say the same for Obama....nothing is ever his fault (according to him).
W. had the
Congresses Blessing to invade Iraq, the final approvale vote was:
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
Nuff said kool-Aid drinker!!!
He can start with the KKK, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, et. al...they've been carrying out acts of terrorism against Americans on American soil for over a century now. They are TRUE enemies of America.
Them along with the new black panthers, the naacp, a raza, the nation of islam and the dnc.
Really? How many documented lynchings of innocent American citizens–simply because they are of a different race–can you attribute to ANY of the groups you've listed?
The Black Panthers have contributed to the death of hundreds of innocent Americans.
Right after those he can start with the ACLU, a far more dangerous organization to the xecurity of the US than all terror organizations combined.
I do not have a problem with killing terrorists in the wild whether they are carrying out or planning an attack or attending their wedding as long as we know for a fact that we are killing a terrorist. I certainly hope we had more evidence than the "Underwear Bomber," telling U.S. authorities that al-Awlaki had played a major roll in his attack plan.
I agree with your comment about evidence. I am still thinking about where my personal belief and feeling regarding the targeting lies. However, someones "saying so" should not be considered evidence at all. Anything anyone says in custody is extremely subject to be misinformation. I dont care how good the CIA think they are. They will never know for SURE will they, if something is a lie. This type of info should be considered a possibility only, and I hope Mr. Holder considers making "other independant evidence" a must on his checklist.
All enemies foreign and domestic....that is the oath......All enemies foreign and domestic
"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."
That's the Sixth Amendment. Y'know, part of the Constitution. The part that says you have to hold a trial before carrying out a sentence. Our government does not have the right to kill its own citizens just because they meet some arbitrary standard of "evil."
There are people who think that the Second Amendment is outdated, maybe the sixth is also, if you as American citizen take up arms in an act of war against the people of this country your rights and citizenship should be null and void.
@WeDon'tMatter – That is a circular argument. You are saying if you are guilty of a crime then you do not deserve a trial to show that you are guilty, so you are not guolty because no one has show it. It is just someones word. If you think that the government does not have to have proof that you are guilty then take a look at Russia right now. If Putin says someone is guilty of terrorism against Russia and they should be killed do think it is right? We have laws because we are civilized and better than that. If they have the evidence they can prove their guilt and then kill them. If they don't have the evidence then they are not guilty.
If you criticize Obama, better not take a vacation in a foreign land.
At the end of the day, I care less if a terrorist is an American Citizen or not. Frankly, all of the "rights of citizenship" went out the window when the fool moved offshore to run his terrorist operation. Next!
very well said. Liberals are funny though. They care more about the rights of a terorrist than they do the innocent civilians this guy was targeting as leader of Al Qaida in Yemen
Holder cannot skip the processes that are set in place to protect the citizens from the government.
No, your rights as a citizen do not go out the window until you have been convicted of a crime in a court of law. That right is extremely important and it's one of the rights that I and my brothers and sisters in arms fight to protect every day. I don't enjoy seeing my work trampled under foot so readily.
Holder has been a mess as Attorney General, but in this instance he is correct. A U.S terrorist planning attacks on us should be fair game to be killed. At that point he becomes an enemy combatant. The world is a better place with that cleric dead
Eric Holder and our President have betrayed our country. By executing civilians without a fair trial, they have become murderers and need to be removed from office by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
I'm sure that that comment will raise a red flag in the threat against the President department. As a retired military person I would think that you would know better than to threaten the President. Maybe you are confused about whether you are retired or were dishonorably discharged.
I may be wrong about this, but I take it You have never served in the United States Military, That Oath to upholdthe Constitution is worded as a binding commitment to protect The United States Constitution for [ALL ENEMIES] [B]OTH FORIEGN [AND] [D]OMESTIC with All means necessary upto and including Your Life. This Also Applies to those who would circumvent it because it does not fit thier agenda...
Are you suggesting an act of sedition? An overthrow of the government ? A terrorist act within the United States ? You are one of them.
I sir am a Natural Born Citizen of the United State of America, Born 150' from the Pacific Ocean 13 min. into the Fourth Day of July. I decend From the MayFlower Pary, My Ancestor and His Family were Kicked out of The Party because He made BEER and they wanted a Puritan Society. On the Other Side My Ancestor is chonicled in History as the First American Native to swindle the White explorers out of a Gallon Jug og Rum wich He was given a bribe to lead the to El Darao, His Name was William Eno. His Tribe Traded with the Viking From Island 1000 Years Before the Birth of Columbus.
If anyone has the right to complain about this issue i is I! Anything less is UN-AMEICAN!!!
....except that this is in direct violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments in the bill of rights. It may make you feel bad to have to give this person their due rights under the constitution, but it's the law. If we can break it for one guy, we can break it for anyone. And by the way, this "due process is not judicial process" line is 100% garbage. Again, read the constitution, it mentions court precedings not once but twice. You sir, are a dirty liar.
Only the minute you take up arms against the United States you are now a combatant and give up your 5th and 6th Amendments. You no longer fall under the category concerning Civil Liberties.
The problem is that it is the US GOVERNMENT that is solely deciding who to kill and who not to kill. Do you really trust that the US GOVERNMENT is perfect, and cannot make a mistake? Further do you honestly believe that the US GOVERNMENT would not subvert the process and kill someone who the US GOVERNMENT felt threatened by, but who was NOT a risk to citizens (i.e. people that were going to expose US GOVERNMENT corruption).
He may be able to say it is within our laws, however saying it is within our values is a false argument.
all enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC
if he wanted a trial. he should have presented himself to the court
good job , good ridance
"Foreign and DOMESTIC enemies of the CONSTITUTION"; which is Eric Holder, Obama, and most of the GOP and DEMS; basically all who voted for the "Patriot Act" and "NDAA". You really should read the whole thing, rather than just the part you want to take it out of context and twist to commend the domestic enemies of the Constitution, rather than condemn them. FYI: The Bill of Rights applies to "PEOPLE" not just citizens, read the Declaration of Independence and learn about the creator given "inalienable rights" which are also under attack by our NEW Police State. I assume you went to a Government School so I will avoid the insults about education you deserve; please don't disrespect our Constitution again.
The problem begins with secret opinion...but if Gadaffi did it, sending people around the world to kill Libyan citizens on other countries soil and thought it was okay, gosh, it must be okay morally...
I must apologize to mamoud. I ried to scare him by saying that they tracked you based on your feedback and I was wrong. Dead wrong. No one tracks anybody here, we are all alone in a world gone mad. God help us.
WOW! I think this is now 3 three BO has done that I agree with. We need to include not only Muslim terrorist but also thier cousins the outlaw street gang terrorist and drug cartel terrorist and the ILLEGALS terrorising our social benefits. I favor putting $1000 DEAD OR ALIVE bounties on these people and turn the public loose on them. Save the gov't money that way.
Why can't we kill Christians too?
Not enough bullets?
How's that Hope and Change thing working out for you folks?
Better than your "Mission Accomplished"
Ooooooh burn!!! That should shut Mr. Muff up. Well, played.
Splendidly! Looking forward to the next four years of his Presidency. 🙂
Sad Day for USA .. really sad .. a government that states its right to kill people, without trial, evidence or oversight by any independent civilian institution not under the control of the government.
That is what Stalin used to say and do .. by the millions.
This is a sad day.
Yes yes the bastard had no shame in saying open only he was a terrorist and hated America ... so what?
This makes the USA no better than Israel, Hezbollah, Palestinian terrorists and Russia KGB spies.
very sad...
Well if you read the small print, you will see that the option to kill is there if it is unreasonable to be able to capture them alive.
Any who determines that?
An Army E-6 with a sniper rifle.
Well "Paul", if you don't support America defending it's own innocent citizens from brutal terrorist attacks by whatever means necessary, then go pack your bags and find somewhere else to live. True Americans are tired of liberal and weak minded people meddling in serious security issues that they have no real comprehension of the stakes involved. Most people really have no clue how bad things really are, I suspect a lot of information is withheld to give us some ability to function in our daily lives. So if a drone goes and destroys some extremist nutcase whose only mission in life is to kill others for sake of personal glory, then :does a dance: screw them.
Beth,
Your logic is much akin to the same logic the German leadership used in the early 1930's to keep their country in a perpetual state of emergency. They abolished civil liberties, freedom of speech and press, all in the name of internal security. folks like you seem to be able to see the forest because of all the trees. Try reading up on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You wouldn't be one of those like King Georgie the second to state "Oh that? Well that's just a piece of paper."
Beth would you be good if the government executed based on a suspicion you were a threat to others? Justice should never be preemptive and based on suspicion.
You clearly don’t understand the checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers. Clearly you’re not a true American.
Beth sounds like a terrorist, maybe we should send a drone her way to be safe. We should all be cowardly like Beth...shoot first investigate never.
Great Day for America!!! Just kill the tards........the hell with the trial. I love it.
Leave if you don't like it here, there are alot of open houses in Syria right now
Why was there even a question about this? If the U.S. is going to target a foreign terrorist why not a U.S. terrorist also? What is the difference? Is a U.S. terrorist's life somehow more important or perhaps they will do less damage and we will forgive them more easily!
Get a rope and hang this nazi n!gga from the tree! 😀
well... that makes u really no better than him ..
the funny thing being that I bet u agree with killing American terrorists
WHEN YOU BOUNCH OF IGNORANTS WILL LEARN THAT THE LANGUAGE TERRORISTS KNOW IS A BULLET IN THEIR HEADS?
SO FOR WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU GUYS WANT AMERICAN ARMY AND THE CIA TO SEND OTHER AMERICANS TO THOSE DANGER PLACES TO CAPTURE AN AMERICAN TERRORISTS, SO WE CAN ASK THEM IF THEY ARE REAL TERRORISTS, AND IF THE ANSWER IF POSITIVE, WE CAN TAKE THEM TO TRIAL, THEN KILL THEM OR NOT? OHHHH! MY GOD!!! GUYS LIKE YOU, THAT ARE LOOKING FOR PERFECTIONISM ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS COUNTRY. GUYS LIKE YOU SOUND MORE ANTI-AMERICAN THAN ANYBODY ELSE!
PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO DECAPITATE AMERICANS AT ANY TIME DO NOT DISERVE THAT KIND OF TREATMENT, WHAT THEY DISERVE IS A BULLET IN THE HEAD OF, JUST TO BE BLOW UP IN PIECES!
PLEASE, STOP PLAYING STUPID!
Alberto, Eye don know iff U HAF A BRANE or not butt iff U keap riting in CapsLock fur a lung time eye vil keel your stoopid ass. Fuckhead brain dead asshole.
alberto... ssshhhh... the kids are sleeping, please stop shouting. everything you wrote about terrorists, just so you know, they think about you. when people start shouting, they tend to stop thinking, so kindly pipe-down, and try thinking instead. you're not the problem, but a symptom of it. we don't have discussions because of people like you, and without discourse, exchange of ideas, we're all just basically cavemen walking around swinging rough hewn clubs made from bones and fallen branches. we can achieve beyond our animal origins only when we refuse to default back to those crude idiotic and violent behaviors. When someone knocks you off your barstool for no apparent reason, if that guy isn't attacking you anymore, before you try to hit him back, consider - why - he may have done it. if he had good reason, and you hit him back, he's going to feel he owes you another whack, since he feels his hitting you was justified in the first place. you notice there are a lot of other countries that were - not - attacked when we were, many of which have greater freedoms than we do (surprise surprise!) so why were we singled out? we obviously did something to piss them off, like our support of repressive regimes in the region, our interference in local affairs, etc., the list does go on. anyway, thanks, guess y'all will resume shouting at each other now.
I agree totally,
the young and under-educated are like the roving bands of adolescent elephants. you are arming them to 1/5th of your capability so you can shoot them – all. its like the bridge seen in Macabe and Mrs Miller, I can't watch. Now if we decry this coming outrage, are we allowed to do that Eric? We need rules. I do imagine though that I may say, I strongly disagree.
Alberto, you are clearly missing the point. OK, let's say for a minute that terrorists do deserve the death penalty. Who gets to decide who is a terrorist. What if the people who get that power decide that 'terrorist' includes anyone who wants to take away their power? Sounds kinda like the USSR under Stalin, or China in the 50s and 60s. The whole problem here is that it has not been proven that Al-Akawi was a terrorist. It was 'suspected'. He 'probably' was, biut are we now handing out death penalties on people who are 'probably' guilty?
Right on Debbie! Kill those filthy ragheads.
Personally I am fixated on that day when the terrorists almost destroyed America. Destroyed you say? I say yes. Those dirty arabs almost succceeded in tearing apart the fabric that makes us free. I for one will never sit idly by while these animals, these smelly animals, try to kill us by hijacking our planes and killing indiscriminately innocent Americans. Long live freedom!
then go enlist yourself, you passive american sloth! get out of your fast food fart-ladden couch and go join the army, go put your trollish pathetic ass on the line to kill some 'smelly dirty arab animals' on the other side of the planet and breed some more hate.. amer'cah! f*ck yea!
You go girl 🙂
The scary and horrific part of this... is that the government have redefined "terrorist" to include anyone who expresses dissent, such as protesters (on the left or right).
see link here: http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf
extracted:
The training introduction reads:
“Anti-terrorism (AT) and Force Protection (FP) are two facets of the Department of Defense (DoD) Mission Assurance Program. It is DoD policy, as found in DoD I 2000.16, that the DoD Components and the DoD elements and personnel shall be protected from terrorist acts through a high priority, comprehensive, AT program. The DoD’s AT program shall be all encompassing using an integrated systems approach.”
The first question of the Terrorism Threat Factors, “Knowledge Check 1″ section reads:
Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
Select the correct answer and then click Check Your Answer.
Attacking the Pentagon
IEDs
Hate crimes against racial groups
Protests
In order to proceed, users must give the “correct” answer as “Protests”.
According to the document, all DoD personnel are required to complete the course on a yearly basis.
*
In other words, America under Obama is following a parallel path to Germany in the 1930s, before World War II started. From here on in.. it is a fast track to fascism and corporate oligarchic totalitarianism. The great 235 year experiment in liberty is over. .... and we only have ourselves to blame.
I hope, when the shit really hits the fan, that our military will be TRULY patriotic and side with we the people, and like in Russia in 1992, disobey orders and not turn their guns against us.
I like your comment, but it will probably be deleted because you used a dirty word. So much for freedom of speech.
They don't delete dirty comments here idiot asswipe Ameerikan.
Hey, Mamoud, or what ever your stupid name is, at least you spell American correctly. Duhhhhh.
U sounf like a nazi scum. U probably shit your pants wen yor muther cums home.
They don't censure words here but they do track you based on your feedback.
Meisme, what are you talking about? What imaginary child are you talking about who was blown apart while the government was droning for a target? I must have missed something. Obviously, the point escapes you: Americans deserve and have the right to have their very existance protected while going about their daily routines and business on their own soil. I, for one, do not want to live in fear of boarding a plane or going to work lest another national tragedy (terrorist planning carried out) occur as it did in 2001. Since you seem to have forgotten: over 3000 Americans were assassinated that day!
and Debbie don't forget this :
over 109,032 were assassinated by your government from January 2004 to December 2009 in Iraq and the number still rising .
Fear not! The Lord Jesus Christ is with us! Don't fear man! Stand up and be bold! The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, and the house of my glorious refuge! PrAiAiIaaAAAAAAAiiiiSSsssEE tHE LORD!!!
Geez there goes another one....code "CRAZY"...need the men in white coats over here ASAP, another human went insane and is talking to invisible friends. We really need to consider a mental stability test at the voting booth this year.
This guy has a pair, that for sure!
Holder states:
"Assassination are unlawful killings,"
Webster states:
Assassination is : murder of (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.
I speak english. Holder apparently speaks government talk.
Further, there is a precedent for unlawful killing of US citizens.
The FBI murdered Weaver at Ruby Ridge. The FBI burned US children alive at Waco to "save them"
It won't be long before a predator drone kills us citizen within the US who are "terrorist" or who are just turned in by their neighbors over a feud. Holder and the Obama administration needs to be stopped- legally of course-
Assassination is not an american value.
Assassinaion is a COMPLETE American value when our security is threatened by terrorists. No trial. No jury. Just a well-aimed gun with a high-caliber cartridge. Terrorist problem solved. This is the only item that makes sense out of Holder's mouth. That being said, he'll use it to claim anyone could be a terrorist....meaning anyone who opposes his buddy Obama's Holy Reign. Issa's knockin', Mr. Holder and we're not fooled at all by you.
Exactly. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. You mess with the government, you pay the price. Not a Democrat/Republican thing; just the way it is.
All U stoopid Ameerikans kan dye!!!!!!
Trouble with giving a government (ours in particular) carte-blanche, besides the obvious ingratitude it shows our founders who were willing to risk their lives for freedom, when you would surrender freedom, in the supreme act of cowardice, for safety, you are surrendering it to a group of people who cannot (by virtue of being human beings) be trusted with that kind of power. That's what separation of powers and checks and balances were about. The founders knew no one person could or should be trusted with too much power. The knee-jerk cowardice displayed by soft, pathetic weaklings like you who want our government to have the power to kill with impunity anyone they decide is a terrorist are TRAITORS, to the nation and the spirit of freedom under which it was founded.
If we have to give up the rights and protections that prevent the US government, arguably the most powerful government on earth, indeed, in history, from becoming a TYRANNY, then the terrorists have TRULY WON. When you cower, simpering, begging those stronger than your insipid self to protect your worthless sniveling life, YOU have destroyed America, NOT terrorists.
NO TERRORIST OR GROUP OF THEM IS AS FEARSOME OR SCARY AS THE US GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND MILITARY, NUCLEAR ARSENAL, ETC., WITHOUT A LEASH TO KEEP THEM REIGNED IN, TO KEEP THEM FROM MURDERING ANYONE THEY FEEL LIKE WITH IMPUNITY.
These are truly dark times we live in, when the courage of Americans has failed. We let our government pass laws allowing the suspension of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, etc., the various amendments to the constitution. Just to remind you all of a little history, the only reason the people who formed the original US of A gave their consent was ON ASSURANCE that such protections from governmental tyranny would be enshrined in law immediately thereafter. These new laws have effectively destroyed the framework of freedom under which our nation was founded. It is now but a shell of its former self. These new laws are unconstitutional, clear violations of our rights.
The fact that there isn't more outcry is sad and disturbing.
Hey EG your Nazi Party is looking for you.
Eman de Riuqer- You said it more eloquently than I ever could. thanks.
EG: When your neighbor gets angry at you and turns you in as a "terrorist" and your home is nuked from the sky by an executive order from Obama... in that split second as you watch your family being incinerated... Then you will understand how wrong you are.
Meisme, what are to talking about? What imaginary child are you talking about who was blown apart while the government was gunning for a target? I must have missed something somewhere. You missed the point: American citizens deserve and have a right to be protected in our country, on our own soil, while going about our daily routines and business. And those un-American U.S.citizens deserve to be obliterated before their deadly plans can come to fruition. I, for one, do not want to have to live in fear of going to work or boarding a plane, waiting for another national tragedy occur, as it did in 2001. Don't forget: over 3000 Americans were assassinated that day!
Coward. You fear a small band of rag-tag terrorists more than a government with over a million soldiers and enough nukes to vaporize every square inch of dry land on earth, several times over? You want to give these people the ability to murder whomever they like so you'll be protected from a MINOR threat?
I suppose you also want the police in your community, by extension, to be able to gun down anyone they suspect might hurt you? Why not? That's what you've suggested. By giving in to terror, you are COLLUDING with the terrorists. The only way to win is to REFUSE to fear them or their actions. Otherwise, you are with them, not Americans.
Home of the free, land of the brave. Remember that. We ONLY live in the home of the free, as long as we are brave. So cower, cry in fear at what a small group of people on another continent do, while handing your rights over to people you have mistaken for trust-worthy.
It is, and has been for over two hundred years, been every Americans sacred charge, to fear and distrust our own government before all other things, and seek to ensure its powers are only those required to do the basic job of governing, and nothing more.
I think giving them the right to murder Americans, or indeed anyone, with impunity, can be described as giving them a LOT more than they need to do their jobs of governing. America is falling apart, we're losing our basic freedoms, and YOU'RE HELPING MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
People seem to forget that the single most important aspect of our Constitution is that it includes a set of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of the government from becoming too powerful. Allowing the executive branch (through their direction of the military) to have the power to kill non-combatants without a trial in any situation other than immediate self-defense (i.e. they are being fired upon at that moment) is a major step in the wrong direction. As we have seen, that power (originally aimed only at 'foreign terrorists') quickly morphs into the right to kill US citizens who are 'suspected' of terrorism. The next move is to kill an American citizen who is protesting against US government policy overseas. Can you imagine what Richard Nixon would have done with this power had it been available to him? Jane Fonda would have never won her oscar for 'Coming Home', she would have been blown to bits while riding on that tank in Hanoi. On the other hand, Nora Ephron would probably be happier today since Carl Berstein would have undoubtedly been atomized as a potential threat to the US.
And so do the Iraqi's Debbie or are you special? They had nothing to do with your 911, however you gave them worse than 911, how do you propose they get justice? Should someone wipe the USA off the map? Should all Americans be considered terrorists by the rest of the world and destroyed? You have better odds of getting hit by lightning than injured or killed by a terrorist attack, should the Gov send someone to hold a lightning rod over your little head so you don't have to live in fear....YOU ARE A COWARD and deserve NO RIGHTS, however, the rest of us do not want to give up our rights to help you feel less cowardly. This is the home of the brave, you should consider relocating to the home of the cowardly, wherever that is....likely under a rock somewhere.
VeteranJim, I agree with the "coward" part of your remark, but not on the "deserve no rights" part. If ANY ONE of us can pick and chose who gets rights and who does not, that's as bad as no one having rights, because if you can pick why can't someone else? Or the government, more to the point. Rights should be extended to all, even... let me advance a potentially unpopular idea here... even to NON US citizens. Remember, a "right" (as we are using it here, not the opposite of left, etc.,) is a protection granted by the government against government tyranny. If we don't extend them to anyone subject to the laws and regulations of the United States, meaning pretty much everyone in our country, flying over it, etc., then that allows the government to mistreat individuals, on our collective behalves, using our tax money. If they can trample all over the rights of non-citizens, anyone visiting for legitimate reasons, such as tourists, foreign students, business people, etc., will be subject to the capricious whims of our elected leaders. That's no way to treat guests, but more importantly it opens a doorway for abuse of OUR essential liberties. If they can do something to non-citizens, all they have to do is say YOU'RE NOT A CITIZEN, and then treat you however they like. It's the reason the guys stuck in jail illegally in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are there, rather than here. If they were being kept in the US, the federal government would not be able to mistreat them as they currently do and have done for years. No, rights are OUR insurance against tyranny, and there's no reason any person should be denied the basic protections and freedoms we, as the legal source of the government's authority, have decided we should have. Even if you disagree with what they say.
Educate, don't castigate, I say. If someone disagrees with you in an argument, discussion, or debate, and instead of explaining patiently why the other person is wrong, and you just shout him or her down instead, you look like an ass, the other person (or persons) have learned nothing, go away with their misguided opinions reinforced, (out of being put on the defensive, it's an instinct) and you have TRULY wasted your breath.
A simple solution. We should declare a law that we'll strip off any terrorist's citizenship within 30 days after being charged. If they don't turn themselves within 30 days, their citizenship will automatically be stripped. If they turn themselves in and face trial, then they can get all the same rights as Americans. If they don't turn themselves in and loses the Citizenship, then we don't need to have this debate anymore about killing American citizens.
How do you Strip Citizenship Constitutionally? And how would that tool be used in the long run?
I'm not sure how or why that can be a Constitutional thing, but if we make it clear to those Americans who attempt to attack and harm US citizens that their rights as a citizen are null and void, can this be a bad thing? Just asking. 🙂
You do realize that doing something so stupid as what you suggest would give those in power the ability to strip YOU of your citizenship, right? I know... but you're not a terrorist, so that would NEVER happen to you, right?
So naive, so cowardly. If someone who doesn't like you personally gets in a position of power, that person can decide you're a terrorist on whatever trumped-up charge they decide to cook up, and deprive you of your rights and citizenship, if what you suggested comes true. Then they can execute you with impunity, because after all, you're a terrorist.
Run and hide from the terrorists, fools. Cower, beg for protection. Surrender your freedoms, feeling confident that it will never be a problem for you. We'll just see how that works out.
Yeah...and make a law that says all criminals must turn themselves in immediately after committing any crime and we could also make a law that says stupid people can't post online, but then no one would know the silly things you think and be able to respond to you.
Well! the N.ggers are good at killing, aren't they? Surprised???? 😀
White House meets the 'hood. Bush and Cheney were no better.
Rather than just make disrespectful comments, let's look at what Holder 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."
The question is, who determines the criteria? The government determines who poses a threat, whether or not they can be captured, and then decides to use the principles of the law of war on it's own citizens. BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID. They can "legally" apply this to anyone they want exterminated.
That sums it up neatly, Funker. No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers.Especially, women.
Funker, thank you for making me feel less alone on these boards, as being someone willing to point out what a horrible idea it is handing this gang of thugs...er, government, even more power to kill with impunity. I wonder how many people here posting how important it is that we be protected from "terrorists" realize how much more devastatingly destructive and horrible our own government could be that "the terrorists"? Are they really that ignorant? Have they forgotten the lessons of the founders, that it is better to risk being hanged as traitors to the British Crown than to live under a totalitarian regime that can have you executed at a whim?
The small-minded cowards whom we try to educate here should consider this: the government's promises of restraint are utterly empty. Even if they're sincere, what happens when they change their minds, or a new group of so-called leaders takes over, and now they have these powers?
I ask you all this: Imagine you're at a bank, and the guy who steps up in line behind you has a gun in his hand, and is wearing a ski mask. As you're getting ready to wet your pants he puts a hand on your shoulder, and assures you that you needn't fear, neither he, nor his three friends behind him (whom you now notice are similarly armed and masked) have any intention of robbing the bank, or hurting anyone. So you shouldn't worry that they could do it easily, and are much more ready to do it if they decided they wanted to than they would if they'd left their guns and ski masks at home, after all, they've PROMISED you they won't.
Would you buy that? So why will you let your elected officials do the same thing?
Someone has to remind Mr. Holder that we have this thing called the Constitution and it contains this principal called innocent until proven guilty. Just like Clinton before him we have a liberal president who has no qualms about assassinating citizens without the need for a trial.
Remember RUBY RIDGE!!! History is written by the winners
Fire Rush Limbaugh!
Although this has nothing to do with the thread, I agree. The Republicans are better off without his animus.
Everyone has an expiration date. Rush seems to have reached his, though it is off topic here.
To not even consider that terrorism can be an inside operation is ignorance at the highest level! Good news is that 'The judgement day' is closing faster than ever, when all people will know the truth, about huge brainwashing system of fear and will feel guilty and sorry for a very long time... May Cabal souls drop to a very bottom and be stuck for as long as needed!!! Peace and Love is on away here...
Anyone ever notice that when it comes to "killing Americans" whether it be by abortion ( we can because the USSC said so) or assassination by our own government with absolutely NO reasonable standard the left doesn't care because some associate of Obama said it's ok ? ( Even thought the Constitution says we are entitled to due process). But the moment some Thirty year old bag doesn't get her contraceptives at Law School they are ready to invoke ANY argument (read :invent an extra constitutional right) to get that accomplished.
The Lefiinistas are dangerous people. They have definite passive/aggressive issues.
How you managed to turn this into a Left vs Right argument is beyond me. JUST AN FYI Bush approved one of the most damning amendments ever. The Patriot Act. This isn't a Left vs Right issue. This is an issue of everyones rights being trampled on and the Constitution which protects us from a Government getting too big. Both Repubs and Democrats are to blame for this.
Amen.
I agree and said that in a subsequent post on this thread.
Huh? I'm liberal and I can tell you most other liberals are not in line with Holder's lame excuse to assassinate. I don't trust ANYBODY, no not Obama, Micheal Moore or even Noam Chomsky to arbitrarily give execution orders without due process.
Anybody be mistaken..... anybody can have vendetta.... If you give up that right they may just come after YOU terrorist!
Amen. I'm a conservative who actually watches MSNBC and considers liberal views. For instance, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line and should be ignored in the public discourse. I totally agree with you on Holder, as well. Common ground!
Yes, his statements seemed very constitution avoiding to me and if we look at the Patriot Acts and now the NDAA it seems that we as Americans now live not only in a police state, rather in a police world if our military can just kill anyone that any President claims is a terrorist. I being a liberal has nothing to do with this matter as an American who believes in the rights of all Americans see this as one of the worst freedom killing decisions in America's history. I won't exchange my liberty for security. We are stuck we can reelect Obama who signed the NDAA or we can elect a republican who would go even further in taking away our rights and privacy. Remember a republican president and congress passed the Patriot Acts and wiretapping laws. I see us needing to unite peacefully and demanding that these laws be repealed. republican, democrat, independent, unite and save America.
To Albert Torcaso: I feel your pain. I'm a conservative who shares liberal views on certain things. We seem to all agree that killing US citizens without "due process," or "judicial process," whatever Holder wants to call it is wrong.
Anyone else hear the words "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" echoing from two centuries past? I'll go a step further, and point out that not only do they not deserve liberty or safety, cowards and traitors that they are, but they are assured of losing both. No terrorists can do as much harm to America or Americans than our own government can, and the ONLY defense we've ever had against them is our constitution, and its amendments, and the protections they enshrine.
All your guns do nothing to protect liberty. A century and a half ago, half the country decided the federal government was getting too intrusive, and rebelled. They were armed WAY better than any small group of wackos in Montana or Texas, and fighting against a force VASTLY inferior to the modern US military... and they LOST HARD.
Anyone out there polishing their guns think they can stand up to the force our government could bring against you if it decided you were a threat? By the way, if you have a gun, you can figure you will eventually be determined to be a threat. Let's see how well you and your family and friends will do. Again, it's not the second amendment or the collections of guns the gun nuts have that keep the government honest, it's the integrity of those who serve within the government that they would refuse to obey orders to lock-up or kill Americans when someone ordered innocent Americans locked up or killed for no reason, because they'd know such incarceration or execution is illegal. Problem is, what happens when a bill like the NDAA is signed, and these things are suddenly no longer illegal?
Of course, now with the Patriot Act and NDAA, it seems it's not illegal anymore, and such is the nature of the break-down of our freedoms the NDAA has caused that would seem to preclude anyone being able to challenge it in the conventional way. Suppose you're arrested, labeled a terrorist, and are held incommunicado, without charge, indefinitely. How do you sue the government, from that position, to regain your freedom, when you've been falsely accused? Suppose when you've disappeared in the night, your wife (or whomever) figures out what must have happened, and sues. She (or whomever) then also disappears, as she or he is obviously fighting on your behalf because she or he is ALSO a terrorist. At least that's the excuse they'll use.
Think it can't happen? I'm sure Japanese Americans during WWII thought they could never be rounded up and put into camps on the assumption that being of Japanese extraction meant they could not be trusted NOT to betray their new home country to their emperor... but it happened.
But I've rambled enough. There are some men at the door, in dark suits and sunglasses, who say they want to check my computer for illegal files.
I've got nothing to hide, so I've got nothing to fear, right?
I think most people will agree that Al-Awlaki – if indeed he was working for a terrorist organization, as the evidence seems to suggest – met with a just, reasonable and lawful fate. That instance is not what worries me, and others. What worries me is how this could be misused in the future. It sounds like all the government has to do is "decide" that a person is an enemy combatant / enemy of the State – not "prove" it. Nothing has to be presented to a court. No evidence has to be provided. Suppose in the future a president "decides" one or more political enemies are "enemies of the State", and their capture is not feasible? He could legally have them killed, and evidence justifying that position never has to be presented to anyone. I have no problem with a terrorist getting wacked, but I do have a problem with idea that its legal for the government to simply "decide" someone is an enemy of the State, that capture is not feasible, kill them, and never have to provide evidence to anyone to support those conclusions. It is way too open to abuse. If the framers of the Constitution meant for the executive branch to have that sort of power, I'm sure they would have spelled it out. What is the point, for example, of habeas corpus (or many of the other rights guaranteed in the Amendments) if the government has the legal right to just decide to kill someone, do it, and never have to justify it?
So, while I'm not saying the government should not have the legal right to just go wack a terrorist, I am saying that there needs to be checks and balances to ensure this sort of power can not be abused. I think that is the point of the ACLU demanding court approval (or whatever) of these sort of killings – and I think that or something like it is reasonable and necessary to prevent future abuse.
Anyone disagree with that? If so, please tell me about how you would like to live in a country where the executive branch wields that power with no checks or balances.
There absolutely has to be some sort of checks and balance instituted. I completely agree with you on that point.
Exactly. That seems to be what a lot of people don't get. It's not about Al-Awlaki, it's about the fact that the government is asserting the authority to kill whoever they want, whenever they want, without providing zero evidence. The scary part is a lot of people seem to think the government is holy and deserves this power and that they'd never abuse it. The American people should draw a line at the point that the President claims he can order an American killed and doesn't have to show the evidence because of "national security." Instead people cheered for Obama when he announced it.
Yes and not to mention the fact that this is a Congressional power by Constitutional standards and not Presidential. Read Article three Section three of the Constitution.It says it explicitly.
It is ironic that you mention "Enemy of the State". There were three (3) pivotal movies (Enemy of the State, They Live, and Demolition Man) that outline what is happening within the U.S. Many people do not understand the immense power and influence the media has to mis-inform the people at the behest of the zionist beneficiaries.
There is no difference between the republicans or democrats except the names. One creates the Patriot Act, to deprive citizens of their rights, while one extends those abuses. It amazes me that Americans watch this "dog and pony show" they call debates, whereas candidates repeat the same lies every 2 – 4 years with American citizens falling for the rhetoric, expecting different results (insanity). In today's society there could be no Dr. King because he would have been detained or killed after a few speeches.
ALL Americans must ban together to preserve a future for our children, lest the offspring of the power elite consume them. You must accept the fact that many have given their lives for our right to constitutional protection. As commented earlier a woman can have a hundred lawyers to represent her if she is denied access to a pill to abort a life that she willingly created through her own lustful desires, but no assistance to protect the civil liberties of other citizens.
I'm sorry, but what in the hell do movies and birth control pills (or morning after pills) have to do with the US government giving itself the authority to murder its own citizens in the alleged name of keeping us all "safe"? I am confused. No one should be getting anything, especially out of those movies, but entertainment. If that. As for abortion, I'll agree it's murder, if you'll agree that a woman controlling her body is at least slightly different from (and not a germane topic here) from the US government deciding it can kill whomever it likes, wherever, whenever, without even having to come up with a pretext anymore. For the most part, the unborn are not really aware of what's going on, flinching away from a needle being a reflex, and not a reasoned reaction, and few people are ever economically dependent on the potential income from an unborn fetus. However, a grown person with a family and a job, who objects to government malfeasance, who finds him or herself locked away or killed without due-process, is a very different and much scarier thing, and by the way, to the detriment of the freedoms of ALL, INCLUDING the unborn. If you're so concerned about them, you might consider we should be good stewards of the country you're hoping to make it so no one can prevent their being born into, rather than letting further erosions of essential freedoms occur.
If due process does not mean judicial process, then what does it mean? Seems like that statement takes any real meaning out of the term. Due process now means whatever he says it means. It could mean an apple, or a turnip.
Trying to be fair, I actually looked up both phrases on multiple sites (Google, Ask.com, etc.). They seem to be the same. What is Holder's distinction?
Svann,
You have the right to an apple. If you waive this turnip, anything you say will be twisted and perverted into making it sound like we were justified executing you after the fact. Do you want an apple to be present when you are questioned, or would you prefer a turnip?
Sorry, I couldn't help it. I needed a little comic relief... this whole business is really upsetting...
really what is it all about anyway?
us – oil, power, and safe homeland
them – payback, right to be left alone and rule there countries as they deem fit, and for us to quit dropping bombs and murdering them and there people.
Payback? Right to be left alone and not have our bombs rain down on them? Hey, you can't say these things here, it might be true! 🙂
LOL. The government pronounces things and you sheeple believe it. Like 911. The government played the American public on 911 like a fiddle. You have a better chance of being hit by lightening than killed by a terrorist. If Operation Gunwalker is any example, Holder himself would be considered a terrorist by the very standards he spoke about. Think about it.
I know many will not agree with me when I say this, but I agree with the Federal Government. When someone is found be be plotting to killing US Citizens and this is in fact TRUE, then I say OK. Those individuals who are found trying to kill AMERICANS deserve what is coming to them. They no longer respect the LAWS, and therefore don't deserve to be protected by those LAWS we hold so precious.
See I don't agree with this. The problem becomes SOMEONE will abuse it. What stops the government or someone pretending to be someone else from posting information on the internet saying that a person supports Terrorism? We've seen just in the last week a new article about a receipt from a supposedly top 1% telling a waitress to get a job and tipping $1 dollar. It took a few days for people to realize that it wasn't real but the damage was already done. Tons of posts by angry head hunter's. The Judicial system shouldn't be able to be avoided or overturned. The problem is good intentions. The ability to assassinate a U.S. Citizen just opens up more cans of worms. If one person innocently dies from this it's all be for naught.
Bruce, the problem is that there is no burden of proof required. If, for example, Obama (or the next president or the next, etc) decided that you (or I) was a "threat", he could have us killed. It is that simple. Even with some kind of check/balance system in place, it is simply unConstitutional. Not many understand the far reaching consequences of the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, EA, HR347, etc but they will – and when the masses realize what has happened, it will be too late.
Nice work covering all of the "laws", Utah. I erroneously posted ADDA earlier, when I meant NDAA. But, as you have pointed out, it is a long list of legislation compromising our rights.
Bruce, you're assuming the government is trustworthy.
You should know better. Seriously. Have you forgotten that a healthy distrust of our own government is the sacred duty of all Americans? Hence, we should not, cannot, MUST NOT let the government just grant itself the authority to decide who a terrorist is, without trial, etc., and I mean a real trial, not one in a secret kangaroo court, or Star Chamber... (look it up).
This needs to be fixed.
Yemen today, 139 soldiers were blown up in an Al Quaida attack. Nice article in the Times of India. Yemen is a battlefield.
I saw that, but then again I wonder how many "insurgents" we killed this week in Afghanistan and around the world
meisme
I saw that, but then again I wonder how many "insurgents" we killed this week in Afghanistan and around the world
most muslims are killed by fellow muslims , its a sport
Fear not. The Lord Jesus Christ is with us. Don't fear man! Stand up and be bold! The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, and the house of my glorious refuge!
Any solution involving imaginary beings is not a solution. Might just as well hold your breath until things change, see how well that works.
hmmm, many here have really shoddy memory and forgot 9/11 or failed to learn that we cannot be naive like in the past, especially in regards to the extremes of the muslim religion. if they are terrorists, especially converted jihadists, that means they have already declared hatred towards any americans and are threatening to kill innocent people, in which case it could be anyone of us, or many of us at once like the cowards did on 9/11. so i'd like to know what type of scum can excuse away such a twisted and evil person as to find any excuse as to why we should act like naive sissies and not do whatever it takes to protect our country, interests and people? thank god for people with balls who understand that, because many of you would've rather gotten blown up by now by some twisted 6th century-minded apes.
I never cease to be amazed by the wild inconsistencies of conservative thinking. When they are opposing regulation or administrative agencies, government is packed full of mindless idiots who do nothing right.
But when security or military matters are discussed, the government suddenly, magically becomes this perfectly informed, mistake free apparatus. They never misidentify terrorists, never botch anything,
Yep, they predicted the fall of the Shah, the fall of communism, stopped 9/11 and caught Bin Laden right away. They got WMD right and they didn't mire us in endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Government is government. It does some things right and much wrong.
Nothing wrong with this, it is simple if you are meeting with the enemy you are an enemy of the state, been that that way since the beginning of time and if you pick up a weapon or plan an attackon yourcountry you are a traitor pure and simple, and should be subject to termination! period
Very true. People have only been looking at the part of the Constitution covering right to trial, but this is superceded by Article II, Section 3 covering treason. No trial required with two credible witnesses, and aiding or offering comfort to an enemy is grounds for charges. And this yokel put his Al Quaida affiliation in front on millions of witnesses. This guy certainly got what he had coming, and he had to know he made a deadly choice that would eventually have consequences.
Well as usual people like Ed have it completely wrong and as usual out of context.
First Ed, it is Article III( not article II as you said ) AND Section III.
Two : Word for word from the Constitution : Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ( This considers DUE PROCESS in Amendment Five)
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. 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]
Holder wants to suspend all of this and by passage of the ADDA and Patriot Act says he has the legal authority to do so. He can say it. But, that doesn't make it legitimate.
Ed try again some time when you don't want to trivialize your own rights.IOW Ed, Holder wants to suspend your rights to kill you for any reason he deems appropriate. no need to declare war as required, no reason to charge you and read you your rights, no reason to have a trial by your peers.
II hope you like looking over your shoulder, Ed because that's what Holder wants. He wants you to be scared. Not responsible. It's how the Leftinistas think and operate.
Have a nice day ! 8 – )
Pardon me... its cold here in Pitt and my fingers are cold. Yes, it is Artcile III. I would refer you to your Gunther's Constitutional Law, which has all the old cases. 1942 ex part Quinn. Americans caught aiding Germany sentenced to death by military tribunal. Supreme Court kicked back the defendents writ of habeas corpus, iwth the aim of getting a jury trial on grounds and precedent too long for me to cite. But its there to read. The guy in Yemen did not have a jury trial coming... but here is a taste of the decision: Court upheld the conviction and stated that American citizens “who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents" The Massachusetts Bar Association has a great article on the matter. I enjoyed your post, and appreciate good solid thinking and debate. Its good for all of us. Matters of war and death should be taken seriously. I wish that Holder could explain his position a bit better; people may not agree with the man, but we deserve a better explanation than seen to date. Cheers!
Glad to help, Ed. But, you make an interesting point about Holder which concerns me. I don't;t think he knows what he is talking about. It all seems "canned".Lifeless. no punch. Like a teleprompter speech by Obama. Was recently in your fair city. I always enjoy the "Burgh.
Get some warmth on your hands..
LOL. Figures abortionists like Steve would trivialize all life. No wonder the Nazi's made lists. Sick Steve. Just sick.
(oops.. posted this in the wrong place... here it is again...)
Steve... I take it you know for a fact that no one you "meet with" is secretly, unbeknownst to you, a terrorist. Think about every person you know or have routine contact with. You willing to bet your life that not one of them is secretly a sleeper agent? What if one is a sleeper agent not of Al Qaeda, but of some other terrorist group? Eco terrorists, perhaps? People who trespass onto construction sites and sabotage them to keep them from erecting new skyscrapers? Or are you only okay if you get prosecuted without rights if the people the government thinks you are colluding with are "real" terrorists? Who decides that? Oh yeah, NOT YOU.
Wouldn't it be funny if one were, and you didn't know, but you were locked up without charge, without trial, and summarily executed, ironically, just as you think others should be, because someone you thought you knew was secretly a terrorist? Oh, I know... all your friends would TELL you if any one or more was secretly a terrorist, right?
When you protest as employees of the US government are about to blow your brains out that you're not a terrorist and you didn't know the other guy was one, they say "sure you didn't" and then shoot you to death. Now don't you wish you're position had been a little less cowardly, a little less "Pwotect me, pwotect me, oh US govewment, pwotect me fwom the scawey tewowists!"?
Those who trade freedom for security will not only have neither, but are pissing on the graves of our founders, men whose boots people who cower and beg for protection from terrorists are not fit to lick.
So, let me get this right. John Woo is evil and should be arrested for abusing the human rights of GITMO detainees because he wrote the legal defense for EIT, but if he Ok'd the legal defense to just turn them into GOO via a drone strike along with any civilians in the immediate area is just OKEY DOKEY and perfectly legal and just right?
Oh, and while John Woo's legal defense was available to the press and public to read, the Obama administration,i.e. "the most transparent administration ever" and the AG's Office of Legal Counsel will not reveal one page of their legal opinion.
Pastor Palevo, your remarks are a perfect example of knee-jerk reactions by those who can't be bothered to actually read the entire article. "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." So, no, they can't kill you for just suspecting you.
Three things mus be met... but none of them involve the judicial branch of OUR government... Due process should not be ingnored... Holder is an arrongant Putts... a discrace to this Country!
You misspelled "putz", and... oh, a lot of things. Can't really say I disagree, though... 🙂
"Imminent" is a rather fuzzy definition, don't you think? And since there's an undeclared, never-ending war going on, imminent means pretty much "all the time".
And are we in a "War on Terror?" Has it been declared by Bush or Obama? I missed that.
Funker, the War on Terror was "declared" by Bush Jr., and it continues under the man people "Hope"d would "Change" things. Hahahhahahah... feeling stupid yet, America? No? You're going to reelect him, aren't you... yep. (sigh).
OTOH, since there's really no alternative... hey, can we have someone resurrect Dwight Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt? We haven't had a decent president since that bygone era...
President Hype-bama? No... Resident George Duhhh-bya Bush? Hell NO. Philanderer in Chief Clinton? Debatable..., but I like my elected commanders in chief to have the integrity not to screw around on their wives... President Bush Sr.? Second coming of Nero... Reagan? Does anyone know for certain when he went senile? Hard to tell, it seems... President... Carter? Bwahahahahah.... loser. Ford? Didn't he start the tradition of pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey, when he pardoned his predecessor... Nixon? President Nixon was, in point of fact, a crook. He lied about that, unsurprisingly.
I could go on... but I won't. I'm just wishing we had some leadership, for once, but it seems all we have now is Bush III, versus thieving white bread, cheating fat head, extremist fundamentalist homophobic bigot, and sincere, but nevertheless insane lunatic. They say rock the vote... but why bother? None of these men should be president.
What a shame.
So Nick is voluntarily agreeing to suspend OUR own rights for us. Check. Nick, our rights are NOT negotiable. If you don't believe that our rights are preordained at birth without condition then you have ANYTHIING but the USA, Holders ridiculous comments notwithstanding. Trading rights for some perceived level of safety that is NOT quantifiable at some reasonable level is UNACCEPTABLE. What Holder has said is NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is the creeping erosion of rights our Forefathers warned about.
So let me see if I have this right.
Holder : 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. ( But, look the other way if it's the USG doing the killing ?)...lol..wow
Well ok, uh, if it's a surprise, how do you know what the risk level really is ?
Holder : 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.
^^^^^^^ This is Horsesh*t ^^^^^^^^^
IIf it's a surprise attack there is NO way to know the level of risk.
Capture not feasible? According to what standard? The Seals killed OBL. They could have captured him, but didn't. ( Not that I agree with capturing him)
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.
Law of war ? we haven't declared war against al Quaeda. does Holder have any intention of recommending this option to Obama and Congress ?
"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."
Now Holder is talking Orwellian doublespeak. Is not due process part of the judicial process ? Which would make it a guarantee ?
Folks this is a way of Holder justifying the new law to capture/kill Americans for being a perceived or real threat. My problem with this is two -fold.
1/ It is not a standard at all. Holder is basically saying we can kill any American anytime we deem it necessary EVEN for the flimsiest of reasons and that your rights are immaterial to our perception of the risk YOU MIGHT pose regardless of the lack of standards to determine risk levels AND determining that we have suspended your rights to kill you no matter how low our standard is because we "say so".
2/ His own Gunwalker gun running program rorbably meets the minimum standards he's outlined here in his speech at Northwestern law.
Draw your own conclusions here.
Who cares about the legality?
Whoever joined Al-Qaeda to destroy Americans deserves death, regardless of nationality, period.
The terrorist al-Awlaki got exactly what he deserved. A hit by drone missile.
One fewer Satanic figure to worry about.
Move on to bigger issues; economy, energy etc.
If you don't care about the legality, you don't care about our country and its laws, and therefore you would be right at home with any of our enemies. Another hypocrite.
Idiot,
I am an American. Read Eric Holder lecture to Northwestern Law School.
It is legitimate to kill a terrorist operative even when the operative is a American when:
– The threat to American lives is imminent
– The American is overseas.
– The local government cannot capture the operative.
I do care about our Constitution and Law but laws are laws, there are always exceptions to the law. The Al-Quaeda terrorists should be treated with the law of jungles.
It is people like you that screw up America.
He's trying to say that people are sometimes wrong with their initial assessments of who is guilty.... and because of that fact we have a judicial system. What if Obama's wife was making it with someone oversees and Obama wanted revenge and declared him a terrorist? That's sort of what happened with Bush & Saddam Hussein... Saddam tried to have Bush Sr. Assassinated... and Bush made up stuff to go to war! Presidents and high ranking officials can have vendettas or can just be wrong. The need OVERSIGHT.
Try reading the Constitution sometime. Rights and freedoms are a very big deal. Trivializing them means you don't deserve them.
As I stated before, the Constitution and Laws for for the 99% of Americans.
You are talking about al-Awlaki, an outlier.
So you are saying we should have let al-Awlaki run around sending some more underwear bombers to the US to destroy us.
You need to think again.
Bingo !
That's funny because all the radical muslims are saying whomever sides with the evil USA who's trying to push it's diseased ridden morally corrupt culture on the middle east "DESERVES DEATH" .. So whos right? and by the way I think it was the US that tried to kill bin laden first not the other way around. This started long before 9/11
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Patrick Henry put it best. I would rather take the minor risk of being blown up by terrorists than live under an unchecked and tyrannical US government, without any of the checks on its actions put in place by the US Constitution and its amendments. Anyone who feels otherwise is a coward and a traitor to the nation, and is defecating on the sacrifice of the founders of our nation, ungrateful wretches that they are.
Have you forgotten that as citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, we have a sacred, custodial responsibility to the world to ensure our government does not become a tyranny? Or are you sleeping, hoping when you wake everything will be better, blissfully ignorant that when you rise you will find the gates down and the doors barred?
"'Assassination are unlawful killings,' while killings under the conditions he outlined would be lawful."
In other words, "It's illegal unless I say it's legal." A theory of law that has been very popular, but never in anything we can call a democracy.
LOL.. So many pathetic posts it almost looks like this is Irans state run media posting to make America look stupid.. So you dummies are saying that if a person is trying to kill americans they shouldnt be targetted?? How dumb are you people.. ??
Don't reply to "jk", the guy is pathetic.
Targeted, yes. Brought to justice? Yes. Murdered to make someone's job easier? No. You seem to forget once a government becomes a tyranny, how hard it is to undo it. Instead of cowering in fear of so-called terrorists, consider the alternative, a US government, accountable to no one, deciding for itself what's okay, without the rule of law, or consent of the governed. You really trust these people? What about their successors? You don't even know them, since you have no way of knowing who will be elected in the future... and you're willing to trust them implicitly? That's damn scary.
When we stop holding our elected officials accountable, we no longer have a democracy.
So Americans traveling abroad can be killed by their own government if they're "suspected" to be terrorists? No wonder most Americans don't travel much.
Exactly. The government has decided to make decisions without "due process," or "the Rule of Law," to determine who, where, and when to knock someone off.
No, jdoe... most Americans don't travel much because they don't want to know that there is a world beyond 'Merica, or because they can't afford it, or (in my case) because America has become so hated for the actions of a select few, that it's a real crap-shoot stepping out of this country with a US passport in your possession. Some people brave it anyway, but the majority are content to visit Disneyland, Sturgis, Dollywood, Las Vegas, and Miami Beach, and go home to a life of wage-slavery and stupification watching hundreds of episodes of the Simpsons. They want their 10 dollar shirts and 50 dollar DVD players, and don't care that some child worked in a veritable prison for a dollar a week to hit that "price point" from the other side of the planet, including the costs of building the factories, mining or growing the raw materials, assembling them, QC'ing them, and shipping them half-way around the planet. Let's forget too how whole villages are being poisoned by the pollution from this manufacturing, because they have no environmental laws where these things are made, any more than they have child labor or minimum wage laws.
I too have the cheap shirts and ridiculously inexpensive electronic gizmos, but at least I feel bad about it, for whatever that's worth.
But that's what a life under a totalitarian regime you're not allowed to question without fear of reprisal gets you... oh, wait... that's where we're heading!
I don't know. Kind of sounds like thoughtcrime from Minority Report.
Treason is punishable by death.
Treason that is proven in the court of law, yes. Not off an arbitrary hunch.
The treason here is by the AG, who is violating the Constitution in principle and in practice.
Sooner or later all Americans will be in a position to be called a terrorist, and 99% of people JUST LIKE IN NAZI GERMANY will turn on their family, friends and neighbors to save their own azz. Laugh now, history DOES REPEAT ITSELF!!
Obama has repeated Hitlers tactics with the blessing of the public just like Hitler did and look how that turned out!
Obama is the only President to be American, no Kennyan, Christian, no Muslim, Socialist, Hitler, the anti christ, the most disrespected President, the foof stamp President, ignoring the constitution. Meanwhile all white gray haired Presidents before him are none of the above. Sick to think that at this time in life there are still white people with such a black heart.
GODWIN'S LAW STRIKES AGAIN!
To Guest: I'm familiar with Godwin's Law, and yes, some on here are going nuts with it. I don't think Obama is anything like that horrible person they're comparing him to. I do think that the present government is striving to control more of our everyday lives to help us, and to some that seems fascist. I think they have our best interests in mind, whether we like it or not. That's the crux of the issue.
"II do think that the present government is striving to control more of our everyday lives to help us, and to some that seems fascist. I think they have our best interests in mind, whether we like it or not. That's the crux of the issue."
This absolutely a frightening statement. To actually believe that our government has our best interests in mind belies what has happened over the last decade. Control and best interests are NOT two things I would consider positives. What free thinking, freedom thinking person would want someone else to control their life, especially the government ? Not one that I know. This country was built on a pioneering and a free, individual spirit combined with hard work, not government nannies and n'erdowells who have all but destroyed this once great country.
What is the big deal. Any American that hates the US so much that it would spend his life planning and recruiting others to commit crimes against it, is not different than a terrorist from another country. Besides Timoth Mcvei was an American terrorist and the US government killed him. SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL NOW?
@Proud51.....he had a trial.
Due Process. "Suspected" is a long way from "convicted".
These guys renounce their citizenship by serving a terrorist organization. The only thing that is necessary afterwards to blow them away, is that they are terrorists. Who gives a darn about his legal opinion? Trying to explain away the obvious as usual. He needs to go back to law school, because if a hillbilly from WV can understand it.....something is wrong here.
William, you renounced your citizenship when you suggested someone who did something you didn't like renounced theirs by so doing. See how that feels? Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
Instead of desperately reaching for excuses to let your government do whatever it tells you it needs to do to protect your cowardly ass, why not man-up, and remember that we are the inheritors of the greatest nation on earth, not because we're just somehow inherently better, but because we were willing to stand up and fight oppression, and rulers who did whatever they wanted, insisting on things like "due process". By that I mean REAL due process, not whatever Holder thinks it means.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will do its job and strike this BS down with all the might it granted itself to ensure crap like this didn't happen back at the beginning of this nation, as this is a clear as day violation of not one, but several parts of the constitution. I think someone will have to sue first, though... where's the ACLU on this? Have they filed yet? I should go look...
He at least had a trial.He had due process.Holder abdicated ALL of those things for Awlaki. That's the big deal. If you are NOT watchful of the government,YOU are not a freedom loving American and you don't understand our Founders OR why tthey came to America to begin with. They came here, to these shores, for the very reasons YOU think are not possible. Our government is NOT run by enlightened people.
You can also be arrested for taking pictures that have bridges, governmental buildings , airports or any structure they feel you could be plotting against. A man was arrested for taking pictures of people driving talking on their phones to show police to get them to step up patrols. its wasnt what the focus his pictures . it war the court house in the back ground. Another for taking a picture of a factory at sun set. But lets keep sitting back listening to Fox News twist the story and make the Amercans fighting for their right and wanting change be the bad guys
I think I see your point. I was videotaping in New York City and Washington, DC, and had some "Men in Black" approach me. I had the necessary papers, and was let go. The point is, the government can make decisions based on "opinion," and that is scary.
Funker... what papers?!? If you mean anything other than a US-issued birth certificate... I mean... you have to have papers, now?
BTW, to all other readers who agree with Holder, et. al., have you considered that the British Crown considered our Founding Fathers to be terrorists? They wanted to execute the lot of them, and DID to a number of them. Still think we should be executing summarily without due process?
Has it occurred to you that due process is not a nicety, not a courtesy to be cast aside during "wartime", but an essential safety feature, like a pin in a grenade? Do you really want to carry a bunch of live grenades around with the pins pulled out? Giving the government (or letting it give itself, as is the case here) unlimited authority to do whatever it wants in the name of protecting your sorry skins is WAY more dangerous than any alternative. Don't let them SCARE YOU, (to instill fear) into letting them do anything they feel is right to protect you from "terrorists", people whose M.O. is instilling fear...
If you give in to fear, and give the government a free license to do whatever, without any check on them, you've let the terrorists win. Good job.
To Eman de Riuqer: Sorry. I'm a professional videograp[her, and you need permission from the tourist cops in DC and NYC to shoot with a tripod, professional gear, etc.
I think an inter-pol red card along with retaining the power of arrest through military action with proper rules of engagement might have been the better option for the administration. A police force here in the US is allowed to apprehend a suspect and fire when fired upon. The same applies in the rules of engagement. A covert strike team with standing orders to abstract a wanted felon or person of interest is NOT new to our military elite.
This was a Mogadishu moment !
Teams train for missions just like this! The gov could had used a team just like the osama raid and achieved the goal! To do it as so in-personal as with a drone strike leaves little room for interpretation as it has been described "assassination" . A drone is a silent sniper in the sky with a bigger round!
This is the definition of
as·sas·si·nate
[uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.
to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
2.
to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.
Eric Holder can call it what he wants but I scored very high in english comprehension and I'm sure you can all read and write english as well, and we can see the truth.
Osama was not taken alive because he resisted, these terrorist believe that when they die they will go to paradise with 72 virgins.
there were no need to waste soldiers lives in order to capture that piece of $h$it
Osama was an example and your opinion of what he was (which I agree) does not negate the definition of Assassination.
Resisted... ha! The "gun" he had in his hand had a maximum effective range of 3 centimeters, and a cyclic rate of fire, (at his age) of probably about one round per night. Remember when they found him he was jerking off to porn. That's what Hillary was so shocked at, in the photo of them watching the "capture". They murdered him, rather than being able to be bothered bringing him here to stand trial on 3000+ counts of murder. The worst part of it, as I see it, was a missed golden opportunity to show the world we're the greater ones, instead of ending it cheap by just killing him like a dog. They took the easy way out. A flash bang (or dozens of them) would have done the job, if they were really worried about it, which they clearly weren't since they were ALREADY IN THE SAME ROOM WITH HIM.
But anyway... so much for the rule of law. They couldn't have been worried he'd plead "not guilty" and get away with it, could they? Then why did they have to do it that way? We should all be questioning, because what they did was done with our implicit authorization and funding... since we vote and pay taxes, this government is SUPPOSED to be accountable to US. Ask yourselves, is it?
meisme, you do realize, (and I'm not trying to be argumentative...) that NO dictionary definition is exhaustively authoritarian on the definition of any word in any language, right? Just because you found an abridged dictionary with a definition of sufficiently narrow scope that you agree with it, does not mean that anyone else is bound to use ONLY THAT dictionary's definition, or indeed ANY definition in whatever dictionary you got that out of.
Just saying... your cutting and pasting out of a dictionary does not constitute proof of anything you're asserting other than, presumably, at least one dictionary agrees with you.
On balance however, yeah, Holder is spewing Orwellian Doublespeak. What more can be said, other than "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Engsoc."
Great, now I can't vacation out of the country without worrying about Holder assassinating me.
I'd recommend not vacationing in Yemen.
Kandy321, location, is I believe, irrelevant anymore, you can be assassinated as easily by jackbooted government thugs here as abroad, so you might as well enjoy that vacation, before your ticket gets punched, permanently. 😉
Holder had an easy case to try.. GW Bush and Cheney for war crimes. It was pretty simple, they admitted to approving torture.
Why didn't he prosecute? No balls, but he does have a wild hair up his arse according to this crazy statement.
Folks, this is a dangerous position. I know all you southerners and appalachia types think alike, but you better watch out for yourselves trusting a bunch of coppers with too much power.
It's interesting the average imbecile who assumes that because someone is labelled a terrorist or insurgent it must be so, that is until someone they know is then picked off or shot surreptiously.
you are the imbecile, the guy left many manifesto and videos.
Juggernaut must not know that Al-Awlaki had lunch at the Pentagon, with Pentagon officials, not long after 9/11. Raises a few questions in my mind.
So what if he did? Do they have proof he killed someone? And could their proof stand up in trial?
Last I checked videos of any nature isn't cause to assassinate anyone.
This is a dangerous position because the CIA is known for abusing power.
–
I've never liked Holder. He has some crazy positions. He should have prosecuted Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
FUNNY HOW REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO CALL THIS GUY "USA CITIZEN"
BUT A MEXICAN WHO WAS BORN HERE AND WORK AND ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SOCIETY IS STILL JUST CONSIDERED A MEXICANS BY THESE M0R0NS.
You just did the same thing!
Saying that conservatives don't like Mexicans is just flat out a generalization – the same thing you apparently hate.
Some of us appreciate our Hispanic friends and resent that.
Just struck me funny but if a person is born here in the US they aren't be Mexican. I totally agree about talking heads saying this guy was a citizen. I thought enemy combatant trumps civilian in this type of situation. just my .02
OF COURSE HE DESERVES TO DIE, HE DECLARED WAR ON THE USA AND RAN INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY IN ORDER TO HELP ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES.
IF HE WANTED A FAIR TRIAL, HE SHOULD JUST HAVE GIVEN HIMSELF UP.
If you really loved this country, you would love its principles of law, or at least understand them. Another hypocrite who pretends anger is the same thing as intellect.
Juggernaut, you may not have noticed but YOUR CAPS LOCK IS ON.
A wise man once said "the first person to raise his voice (start yelling) is the first person to run out of ideas." It's a famous quote... I just can't remember whose, though...
The point many of us are trying to make here, isn't that terrorists should be allowed to do whatever with impunity, it's that if they're doing something criminal, or making war on the US, for the sake of the rule of law, democracy and freedom in OUR OWN COUNTRY, we must give them due-process, letting our government just arbitrarily decide when it's okay to murder someone, then say, "oh, um... he was a TERRORIST, so it's okay! Move along, citizen, nothing to see here," is muy peligroso para nuestra democracia! (very dangerous for our democracy).
Understand this: the job of the defense attorney in our criminal justice system is ostensibly to defend the accused, no matter how obviously guilty he (or she, or they) is (or are). However, in fact, the job of defense attorneys as a group is to ensure the freedom of ALL, not just the accused, by ensuring there is a way to stop the prosecution, police, etc., from just jailing anyone they like. For every group of defendants everyone KNOWS are guilty, there's at least one who is in fact INNOCENT. The trial process exists to protect the general public against overreach and abuse by police and prosecutors.
You can disagree if you really believe, in your innocence, (some might say naivety) that the criminal justice system is PERFECT, and NEVER jails anyone for a crime he/she didn't commit. I don't believe that, and neither should anyone else. Moreover, the cost in money, time and effort prosecuting people helps to ensure a minimum of frivolous and/or malicious prosecutions take place.
Surely you, like everyone else, has pissed someone off at some point in your life. The rule of law is why you can't be thrown under the metaphorical bus on a whim, so you should be happy you enjoy that protection. It ensures that the government does not, and I wish I could underline this, IT ENSURES THE GOVERNMENT PLAYS BY THE RULES ITSELF. If we start arbitrarily letting the government disregard its own rules, NO ONE WILL BE SAFE.
A good instructive (as well as entertaining) example of the danger of this can be seen in the movie "The Star Chamber," starring Mike Douglas, etc. In that film, the defense did its job, ensuring the prosecution did theirs (which they didn't in the case at the beginning of the movie.) The bad guy got off on a technicality... but that's the point. THERE ARE NO TECHNICALITIES. If it's illegal, it's illegal, plain and simple. The government (through the two police officers) violated the civil rights of the accused. Sure, he was guilty as sin, and a wretched piece of garbage to boot, but in protecting HIM against illegal actions tainting the tree of evidence, he helped ensure (in this probably completely fictional thriller inspired by an ACTUAL court that ultimately abused political enemies of the Crown in 15th century England) that ALL citizens are protected from such misbehavior on the part of government employees (in this case, cops).
But no one wants to understand that when government and media chum-up the waters with reminders of how we're all in mortal danger of 18/11 (that's 9/11, times 2), and terrorists, and how we should all be afraid, very afraid... you can all be, I won't, at least, not of them.
We get, collectively, the government we deserve. I just wish we deserved better.
Funny the last time people protested in this county how many of you people against this cheered the cops on while they beat them for nothing and violated their Civil Rights. You should protest this but youd look pretty stupid telling the cops to beat you while exercising your rights. i just watched an interview with one of our ex presidents. Odd that so many of you people thought them traitors yet he back them .100%. How do me save America if we hate our own Americans fighting for our rights. Who of you self proclaimed real American will stand up and be Americans. Some yes. Most will sit home listening to Fox News and cheering the cops on with Oreilly
Fix your grammer next time you try to sound educated. 😉
Mr.Right, you can't argue with the message, so you go for an ad hominem attack about Krag's GRAMMAR? What a sad way to try to argue. The message encapsulated in the text is more important than the accuracy of the encapsulation, when a valid point is being made.
Rather than try to rebut the argument, you're going to call him/her out for typos? Really? BTW, Mr.Right, while we're correcting each other, there's a space required after punctuation, such as "Mr. Wrong". Note the space.
See, annoying, isn't it?
Emnin La whatever your name is, you fell for my trap I was just seeing how ingnorant people really are on these god awful news articles. Thanks for wasting your time. He/She did have a valid point I was just laying a trap to see if someone would be dumb enough to respond thanks for making my study breaks shorter. 😉
Most will sit home listening to Fox News and cheering the cops on with Oreilly
get off your butt and change the channel
nice thing to hear by the guy who defines who's a terrorist or not
Holder's ATF gave guns to the Cartels. Obama and Holder covered up the operation. Obama and Holder gave guns to the Cartels so that they could kill Americans and Mexicans. Sounds like Obama and Holder are terrorists. At least the people of Mexico would think so. No need for a judge! Just come get the American terrorists in Washington. What's up with this? Are Obama and Holder above the law? They can kill without any judicial review? Osama bin Laden did that.
dd, you've got big brass ones, advocating assassination of our elected leaders. High carbon stainless steel ones, actually. I trust when you posted this, you did so anonymously from an internet cafe, paid cash, while disguised head to toe, did not log onto any sites during your visit to the cafe which would positively identify you or been traceable back to you, used a fake e-mail address not linked to you... or are you just hoping the Secret Service doesn't read CNN?
Good luck, man! I hope for your sake they have a sense of humor. It is interesting though, the parallels you draw about our government funneling guns illegally into Mexico... I doubt anyone will ever be held to account for that, on our side. In case you haven't noticed, our government has decided to opt out of having to obey the laws it itself makes.
terrorists are traitors and should be treated as such.
joe the terrorist has a nifty ring to it...don't cha think? that's about all it takes. now you're in the crosshairs.
How do you know without any proof that they only shoot the guilty ones?
That's what we are talking about dumb dumb.
So I trust you also consider the "Fort Hood Shooter" to be a traitor? (I think he is...) but no one's even talking about him. You remember, the Army major, who after swearing an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to obey the orders of the president, yada yada yada, shot and killed a bunch of his fellow soldiers, not in a dispute over a girl, not because some soldier cheated him at cards while they were drunk, but BECAUSE THEY WERE US SOLDIERS...
If THAT'S not treason, what is?
Oh, but you're talking about Billy Ibn Bob being a traitor because he goes to another country and joins the fight against us... which is all well and good, calling him a traitor, I just want to know it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did it, before my tax dollars go to buy the bullet that extrajudiciously kills the guy.
On an unrelated note, payday loan places prey upon unsuspecting young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines before they know well enough to manage their own finances. The financial burdens they saddle the poor, naive young men and women could be shown to reduce combat effectiveness, and could even, thereby, endanger the lives of US service members.
So we should lock these people up for treason too, right? Execute without a trial? What about lenders who foreclosed on military families, improperly in the robosigning scandal? We lining them up against the wall too, right? What about they guy who sold the young airman on that one base a lemon of a car, the tranny went out on it two weeks after he bought it? We should kill him too, right? After all, he sold that car to the airman on purpose, knowing the transmission was on its last legs... the list could go on and on.
I can picture Eric Holder singing "As someday it may happen that a victim must be found / I've got a little list, I've got a little list / of unlawful combatants and domestic terrorists / they never would be missed, they never would be missed..."
Killing suspects is an American value?
There is a pretty simple solution to this. Hold a trial for any American citizen who is a suspected terrorist. If they don't show up to court (obviously they won't) still hold a jury trial and at least let fellow citizens determine the fate of the individual. Seems fair and mostly constitutional. This will take the power out of the hands of the government and place it back where it belongs, in our hands.
Sounds good.
That's too logical and fair. Then the government would have to reveal in court its complicity in myriad terrorist plots and dictatorships. Thus, the government finds it more efficient to let a guy dream up new laws and kill people based on them.
Personally,
I always wonder how we do all this stuff around the world and yet we always push for war crime trials and yet american politicians and military officers are never ones being tried? How is that exactly? Nazi kills hundreds of thousand of jews and we are still hunting the officers down and sending them to prison. We drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill MILLIONS of innocent people and not one US official or officer is even tried ... LLOLOLOL Were are acts not the definition of terrorism? If we ask the innocent families of the dead japanese, is that not the definition of terrorism?
"Millions"? The atomic bombs killed and estimated 150,000 to 240,000 people.
It was war.
Please read history before looking like a fool again. The Nazis killed Millions of Jews and actually even more Russians. As the other poster said, the bombs killed a few hundred thousand after the Japanese went to war on us. The alternative would have been to attack Japan where millions would have died. In hind sight I wouldn't have dropped it, but no one really knew the deal since it was the first and only so far.
I stand corrected and indeed did miss type. However the point remains. To assault with weapons so large as to know large percentiles of loss of life would be civilian, does that not constitute a war crime?
It's not a war crime when you win and no one is powerful enough to convict you. Welcome to "justice."
"When such individuals take up arms against this country, and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans...." blah, blah, blah!
So says Holder who supplied arms to drug cartels who murder Americans and American Police while his boss supplies arms to al qaeda and al qaeda sympathizers in Libya.
These are evil people
Liar and hater
Only copying the evil of Reagan and Iran-Contra.
It would have been unconstitutional had Bush done it, but in Obama we trust, so all is well.
Bush did deal with an American who was fight in Afghanistan ten years ago. It's a little thing known as treason you do get killed for rightly so if you have no loyalties then to hell with yeah is my opinion.
You should read the US Constitution some time.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I have not seen the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court in this case, in fact the government refuses to produce any evidence whatsoever.
Thinking pragmatically for just one second: how would the US go about apprehending this guy? Get Yemen to do it? They're busy with their own civil war. Send in US Special Forces? Okay. At best he'll try to shoot them and effectively get killed himself.
The whole drama queen routine by both the left and right is cute and all, but while I'm no psychic, I think the drone was cheaper, faster, and skips the step of attempting to apprehend the guy. This isn't a developed part of the world where you can ask your ally for help. Could've been handled better honestly, but I'm not particularly concerned about any precedence being set. The rest of you can continue worrying about that hypothetical slippery slope of yours.
Where in the constitution does it say that the rights are contingent on convenience? Where does it say that if there's a faster or cheaper alternative, the rights go out the window? Yes, some things are not always convenient, but convenience has never been an admissible excuse to break the law, not for individuals, not for entities or governments.
Really? We got osama in pakistan (and could had taken him alive but just didn't want to) but you are suggesting we could take this dude in yemen?
Sorry meant to say "couldn't" We couldn't take this dude in Yemen ???
Another "patriot" who doesn't understand the first thing about our country and its laws.
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad."
-Letter to Thomas Jefferson c. 1798
Guess he forgot the 8 year old kid put on the terrorist list for bring a steak knife to school to eat steak. Or the 18 year old army pvt, and eagle scout who had a 2 inch pocket knife locked in a survival kit in his cars trunk got put on the list as well.(he was still in High school). This is a direct violation of the constitution, Russia looks better nowadays then here.
how about killing american citizens with government guns supplied to Mexican drug cartels by Holder and Obama? Also, in a world where even a disagreement with the administration or government in general could land you being questioned / held without your rights by law enforcement or TSA. How about the Enemy Expatriation Act? Or NDAA? What about living in a country where exercising your 1st amendment rights can make you a suspected enemy of the state. What has America come to? I'll tell you, a fascist corporate oligarchy where THEY fear US. And they should.
You sound like an F.B.I. agent trying to sting somebody. Tone it down a notch. You're scaring them off.
Wrong story and besides.. those that were part of the fast and furious are under fire for that.
Mr Fast and Furious himself speaks. Funny coming from a guy who supplied them with all the weapons. What a crock...
I get it we have to show mercy to the ones in gitmo but not to our own people. I understand wait no i dont this is BS. Its do as i say not as i do.
"Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are S U S P E C T E D of plotting to kill American"
Does one need to add anything?
And here I thought the recently passed bill allowing U.S. citizens to be detained indefininatly and without trial was bad, now they can just kill you!? Is this still America?
Keep twisting facts.
WHAT FACTS AM I TWISTING?
Uhh... he's not twisting facts. Do your own research... Quit being a sheep
Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
toby make law as he go
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. ~Thomas Jefferson
Even Iran gives their citizens a trial before executing them.
This is what happens when you let knee grows and jews rule our great country!!
No, this is what happens when we allow fear and intolerance to rule decisions that require bravery, perseverance, and tolerance.
You're kidding right? What he's saying has something to do with his race? This is right from the school of Bush Jr. who is not black. Bush would be proud of this guy and Obama. Our president continues the same foreign policy (while getting the liberals to go quiet on the subject, some even changing their tune and defending it). During Bush, the NDAA stated indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens without trial. Obama's administration specifically demanded the "non-citizen" part be removed for the revision that the president signed. I'm sure McCain is very proud. Plus he extended Bush's Patriot Act, something that he used as a heated campaign point. Flip-floppers on all sides. I can think of only one single candidate who is consistent to his principles, who stands far apart from the rest in both parties.
Holder also doesn't mind if Americans get killed along our southern border either, why is he still employed by the American people ?
Lets see if I get this right: These killings are not assassinations, because assassinations are illegal, and these killings are legal.
"Officer, it's not murder, because murder is illegal."
Um, OK.
And if the President does it it's not illegal. Nixon: A man before his time.
Some people are forgetting that this is a war and not a petty larceny. During wars do you capture every enemy soldier, build a case, show evidence, and have a hearing? No, it is kill or be killed. The battlefield is a different scape now. We need to adapt our methods to the new landscape of warfare. People who complain that these are "assassinations" are a little insulated I think. If the plans of these terrorists were carried out and the opponents family or friends were hurt, they would change their tune.
Hey, why don't you explain the plans of the terrorists to those of us who are "insulated"? Specifics, please. It all sounds like pure horse-dookey to me, but you sound like a guy in the know, so maybe you can fill in those of us who are out of the loop. No "they bad people, they very bad people" crap either, please. I want specifics, names, dates, plans, etc.
Here is a small excerpt of one of his speeches. You can find more very easily if you care to...
http://youtu.be/M0OJQLXcWJw
This is nice. So if the US Government wants to murder you for whatever reason, all they have to do is wait until you leave the country and BANG, you have no legal rights. They have no burden of proof, no evidence, no witnesses, no nothing. You leave the country and they can just kill you and it's all okay. Great. I feel so much better that I pay taxes for this.
Just wait – it won't be long till the Obama administration starts to classify white patriots and constitutionalists as "terrorists."
I am proud to live and work in America and all that it offers my family and friends. I am aware there is always a price for freedom of speech and true human values. However recent statements such as this from Holder, The Support of Urination on Dead Bodies and the Koran Burning – Leave me very concerned. These actions being right or wrong should come with some level recourse. Quite Simply – The USA is Asking – Sorry Taunting The World to Dare Create the Next 911 – The Next Lockerbie – I have an uncomfortable feeling that it is coming sooner than we all think and is being driven by these Spike The Football Statements. What a Real Shame.
don't flatter yourself. Why would the government want to spend almost $4.5 million (done, AGM-114 Hellfire missile) if you did nothing wrong.
Court tested. Mother approved. Good night. Thanks for playing.
Really why don't you define exactly what constitutes what is a terrorist versus free speech. That would certainly be interesting. What evidence is there that the american that was targeted planned any attacks or was responsible for any deaths? Leaving the country and changing loyalty should not mark you for death until it can be proved you actually were involved in a conspiracy to kill or actual killing. You can't just kill someone because of Rhetoric.
It does now.
We deserve to know your level of tolerance for free speech – and for true love.
anybody read the crucible? or familiarity of sen. mccarthy? hey, anybody ever make a poor decision, or believed an outrageous rumor? tell me goodkind, who...
Well said Phil G. Al-Queda loyalists should have as much advance warning of their impending deaths as those who were killed on 9/11.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is Eric Holder a Communist? Is he a Marxist! This is our Attorney General! I guess the word Attorney gives it away. They are about the lowest form of life on our planet. So, let me understand this! If i'm just suspected! Just suspected, they can kill me?????????????????????????? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!The land of the free?? The land of the Grave!
He's not a Communist. He's not a Marxist. But he sure sounds like a Republican!
Try commenting without the beer. You seemed to have something to say.
Slippery slope. Too much government control.
To not even consider that terrorism can be an inside operation is ignorance at the highest level! Good news is that 'The judgement day' is closing faster than ever, when all people will know the truth, about huge brainwashing system of fear and will feel guilty and sorry for a very long time... May Cabal souls drop to a very bottom and be stuck for as long as needed!!! Peace and Love is on away here... 😉
Steve... I take it you know for a fact that no one you "meet with" is secretly, unbeknownst to you, a terrorist. Think about every person you know or have routine contact with. You willing to bet your life that not one of them is secretly a sleeper agent? What if one is a sleeper agent not of Al Qaeda, but of some other terrorist group? Eco terrorists, perhaps? People who trespass onto construction sites and sabotage them to keep them from erecting new skyscrapers? Or are you only okay if you get prosecuted without rights if the people the government thinks you are colluding with are "real" terrorists? Who decides that? Oh yeah, NOT YOU.
Wouldn't it be funny if one were, and you didn't know, but you were locked up without charge, without trial, and summarily executed, ironically, just as you think others should be, because someone you thought you knew was secretly a terrorist? Oh, I know... all your friends would TELL you if any one or more was secretly a terrorist, right?
When you protest as employees of the US government are about to blow your brains out that you're not a terrorist and you didn't know the other guy was one, they say "sure you didn't" and then shoot you to death. Now don't you wish you're position had been a little less cowardly, a little less "Pwotect me, pwotect me, oh US govewment, pwotect me fwom the scawey tewowists!"
Those who trade freedom for security will not only have neither, but are pissing on the graves of our founders, men whose boots people who cower and beg for protection from terrorists are not fit to lick.
So if a terrorist is anyone who threatens and kills US Citizens, then what should we do with Holder?
Good one.
REWARD him! he has done a very great job protecting our country from those hell-bound thugs.
Somebody should reward you with a cracked tooth....idiot
Oh Snap!
I would call this "assassanation" . I would prefer these people go thru "due process". I do hope the government is not just killing without indisputable cause.
In the end this does not concern me directly. If I were killed by our government then I would hope I had done something heinous enough to gain infamy. As I live my life today, I will only be remembered by those close to me and not for any national/international incident.
I will sleep easy tonight.
This guy's death fell under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. A trial is not stated as necessary, but a confession in court, OR at least two credible witnesses that he aided a declared enemy of the country. Offering comfort to the enemy is enough to qualify according the the text. I am certain more than two people saw this man claim Al Quaida membership. I watched some of the crap they guy put out there. It can still be located if anyone would like to bear witness to the man's complicity in Al Quaida. The fact that Congress authorized by vote combat against them means it was in fact a war, maybe not a state to state war, but exactly like the fight against the pirates at Tripoli around 1800 who kidnapped Americans for ransom, stole ships and cargoes, etc... Anyway, I think people are focusing on the wrong part of the Constitution on this. He is NOT a criminal, but an enemy combatant by choice.
Very good. Another thing I think people are overlooking, is that it is called national security for a reason. They can't tell you everything, otherwise the enemy could exploit the loopholes of what is disclosed. The government, just like any corporation, is careful about what it discloses in the event the competition (enemy) would take advantage of what is disclosed.
This guy’s death fell under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. A trial is not stated as necessary, but a confession in court, OR at least two credible witnesses that he aided a declared enemy of the country. Offering comfort to the enemy is enough to qualify according the the text. I am certain [...]
Very good. Another thing I think people are overlooking, is that it is called national security for a reason. They can't tell you everything, otherwise the enemy could exploit the loopholes of what is disclosed. The government, just like any corporation, is careful about what it discloses in the event the competition (enemy) would take advantage of what is disclosed.
No one is overlooking anything except you and the person who wrote the paragraph from the Constitution regarding Treason. Again, it is a matter of due process, right to a trail and evidence proceedings that have been totally eliminated. I would bet that if they came for you, you'd be kicking and screaming about your rights. Those words would of course, fall on deaf ears. The government fears its citizens for the very reasons it has stripped all of your rights to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. They don't want you to think, do or say anything that is against current policy. They fear that when the thin veneer of their sham is stripped away, they will be seen for the socialist loving bureaucrats that they are.
Why does he still have his job?
because he takes the spotlight off President Garbage
because the GOP have kept theres for years same reason Bush and Cheney kept theres
Maybe Holder should go after anyone who is against the Obama administration and its policies. Lets round them up and put them all in detention centers specifically for subversion to the State. Lets also use mind altering drugs on these criminals to get confessions. It is coming to a dictatorship.
Hey, I'm all for sending those noncompromising "don't tax the rich" Republicans to Guantanamo, especially those crazy TEA party idiots!