text:
Holder: Not 'assassination' to target Americans in terror hunt
By Terry Frieden
Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are suspected of plotting to kill Americans, rejecting critics' arguments that those strikes amount to assassinations.
While not referring directly to the government's drone attack on U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year, Holder was unflinching in providing publicly for the first time the Justice Department's legal justification for using lethal force, saying attacks like the strike that killed al-Awlaki fell within "our laws and values."
RECOMMENDED on GPS blog: Evaluating Holder's speech on targeted killings
"Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated force, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful," he said.
Security Clearance: Covering terrorism, military, intelligence and diplomacy
The attorney general's speech to an audience at the Northwestern University Law School in Chicago marked his most expansive comments on the subject of deadly attacks against Americans since his lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a still-secret opinion declaring such lethal attacks are legal and justifiable.
But he said three conditions must exist. The U.S. government must have determined that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against America; capture of the suspect is not feasible; and the operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war.
Holder argued that al Qaeda has the ability to spring surprise attacks and is considered to be continuously planning against to attack on America. Therefore, the law allows for striking even before the "precise time, place, and manner of an attack becomes clear."
"Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed," he said.
Holder rejected the charge that the deadly operations violate the government's ban on assassinations and dismissed the notion the strikes fit the definition of assassination at all.
"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced," he said. "Assassination are unlawful killings," while killings under the conditions he outlined would be lawful.
Holder also took issue with those who have charged the government agencies must get permission from a federal court before taking action against an al Qaeda target.
"This is simply not accurate," Holder said. "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
Al-Awlaki and another American, Samir Khan, were killed in September when a drone operated jointly by the CIA and a military unit destroyed a vehicle in which the men were riding in Yemen. Al-Awlaki, who U.S. intelligence officials have said was an operational planner for attacks, was the target of that strike.
Khan was traveling with al-Awlaki and was not specifically targeted.
Court documents show that Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the so-called "Underwear Bomber," told U.S. authorities that al-Awlaki had played a major role in the plot to blow up a commercial airliner en route to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. President Obama later said al-Awlaki had "directed the failed attempt."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the administration's drone program on behalf of al-Awlaki's father, said the speech was "a gesture towards additional transparency," but continued to object to the legal rationale.
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Hina Shamsi, the director of ACLU's National Security Project, said in an e-mailed statement. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden said Holder's speech left questions unanswered.
"For example, the government should explain exactly how much evidence the President needs in order to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group," Wyden said in a statement released on Monday. "It is also unclear to me whether individual Americans must be given the opportunity to surrender before lethal force is used against them. And I'm particularly concerned that the geographic boundaries of this authority have not been clearly laid out. Based on what I've heard so far, I can't tell whether or not the Justice Department's legal arguments would allow the President to order intelligence agencies to kill an American inside the United States."
Holder also used the speech to defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists, noting numerous successful prosecutions.
"The calls that I've heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality," Holder said. "If heeded, they would significantly weaken - in fact, they would cripple - our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt do us harm."
And Holder indicated more targeted killings are possible.
"When such individuals take up arms against this country, and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response," Holder said. "We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not."
He concluded, "This is an indicator of our times, not a departure from our laws and values."
Follow Security Clearance on Twitter
Filed under: Al Qaeda • Anwar al-Awlaki • AQAP • drones • Intelligence • Justice Department • Living With Terror • Terrorism • Yemen
Duklips
Let's pretend it's WW II. An American citizen joins the SS. Would he have been entitled to due process? I don't know if Hitler or any of his close henchmen personally killed anyone, but they were responsible for inciting the killing. This guy needed to be taken out as an enemy combatant.
In total agreement you choose the side of Americas enemy well then expect to be treated like our enemy. Don't think you are getting special treatment.
Simon Collinge
This comment is like many here ... Completely ill informed . Remember Nuremburg ? That was due process . They were tried in an International court of Law , proven guilty and executed .... Just like your President and his Henchmen should be . They are War Criminals and Murderers Period .
Uh, why would we pretend it's WWII, when it's not WWII? Oh, that's right... to make your silly argument more convenient. Guess what- pretending isn't a good basis for law. Not sure why Holder thinks otherwise... maybe because it makes his job a lot easier too. Doing things the easy way isn't always the right way.
Tonygil
I fail to see a problem: an enemy combatant is fair game, regardless of where he or she was born. Much ado about nothing. If it is ok to target foreigners, it is ok to target uscitizens. The AG is right.
Meestor Yay
Who gets to define what an enemy combatant is, though? The problem is that by-passing the constitution when dealing with citizens, you're leaving the door open to try any citizen as an "enemy combatant". Citizens should be tried in a civil court, period.
tpbco
If a Republican administration did this, you'd have EVERY liberal in this country foaming at the mouth and marching on Washington...
But instead, their silence is deafening.
Hypocrites, all.
See my post above. I consider myself a liberal.
Am a liberal and I got no problem with it. Keep America safe all that matters to me.
Yeah, let's keep us all "safe" by throwing out due process. I'm just waiting for the day when "liberals" are assassinated for being "terrorists", I know I'd be dead along with all my friends... We have a constitution for a reason. Try these people in a court of law!
Jpwolf
A Republican did do this: President Bush ordered the "assassination" of thousands of Iraqis, with less evidence than in this example. I don't care what your political affiliation is: The Constitution and the US. Court system only applies to people in this country. If you leave this country with the intention of striking either US property or people, you are an enemy combatant. The ACLU has no business getting involved, and neither do we. We may even "gasp" have to reconsider the amendment on assassinations if we are going to win this fight.
HardyMonster
Didn't they make a movie about this crap?
Johnny Perry
Does this statement go for the KKK too?
timberonthesound
"War is the aggrandizement of the Executive", thus spoke James Madison who also said that a people continually at war cannot be free. War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Immigration. As our national anxiety clamors for more and more safety against enemies real or imagined, power is centralized in Washington and individual liberties wither.
The war on terror is the forever war.......it's official name is the Long War - named by GWBush.......thus, we are already forever at war, and all the laws based off it - Patriot Act, NDAA - are indefinitely in operation......we will soon be a Police State....indefinitely
SMSUSAF
Wow what if Bush was still in office,, what would CNN and the left be saying
Most likely. they would be saying "Good Job! About time you got off your butt and took it to them!"
aconcernedcitizen
The ACLU must be targeted with drones allowing Holder and Obama to NOT have to explain themselves. What in the world is a matter with America anyway? Only three things that I can see.... Newt, Rummy, and Sandtorum. Super Tuesday? Think I'm gonna barf...
TXJim
People.. we are at war. We killed a leader (a general) in the enemies (Al Qaeda) army.. General's dont ride on horseback anymore and stand behind the cavalry like Lee and Grant.. The make motivational videos, send out instructions, send money and teachings on how to build explosives to their soldiers, who then go and carry out their missions..
This war will continue until Al Qaeda surrenders.. Japan, who attacked us in a manor similar to 9/11, surrendered..
We have killed their leaders and will keep killing until they surrender..
Did I really say manor?... lol manner.. I am still sleepy..
remember when the president said the constitution was a living breathing document? Under Holder it wont breath anymore.
BobbyJohn
Im all for killing any sob that sides with terrorists and im ok with the armed forces, cia or any other branch or any individual doing it fir that matter.
What i dont like here is holders interpretation that due process isnt necessarily judicial process. If it isnt judicial process then what is due process?
THE PEOPLE46
PEOPLE CAN ONLY TRY SO HARD UN TILL THE GOV. MESSES THINGS UP ,THIS CRAP IS UNCOMICAL KILLING PEOPLE FOR NO REASON IS A BORDER BETWEEN LIFE AND HELL. JUST TAKE OUT THE CRAZY. AND JUST SAYING OUR ARMY IS TO "lenient" "SOFT" WE NEED TUFF DUDES THEY NEED TO TRAIN LIKE THE MARINES. I CAN ONLY SAY THAT B/C I KNOW PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE ARMY
Your Psychiatrist
Now you should take your medication and go back to your room before you hurt someone !
VT_Citizen
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.
Excellent example! Too bad the person in question was not in the United States. The Constitution applies to citizens of this country who are on U.S. soil, not in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq. Here is a theoretical question for you: How effective would our military be if the Constitution applied to EVERY person on the planet? Will every person on the planet abide by it, even the terrorist who doesn't abide by ANY laws, religion or code? Not bloody likely....
I can definitely see a future administration taking this stance to a new insane level......Patriot Act, NDAA, killing American citizens abroad without due process........I believe the Occupy movement showed our Govt how angry the public is at them, and with an 11% approval rating and a ballooning deficit, our "Representatives" are only making a buffer zone for themselves for when the crap really hits the fan with a really big war or financial collapse and the ensuing social unrest.......don't be mistaken, we are on a very dark bumpy road ahead if things don't start improving.......Our Govt has turned on its own citizenry.......is this the type of future you want for your grandkids?? The American people need to wake up and take their Govt back.....
The only thing OWS show the govt is, ppl with too much time on their hands can yell really really loud and are willing to sit in a park until change occurs. It showed the govt that ppl will do just about anything except the actuall legitement steps to making the country a better place. It showed the govt that there are possibly too many ppl dependant on entitlements.
KICK ASSES
Congrats Punkass, you've fallen for the oldest "Divide and Conquer" the public tactic of partisan politics - have idiots like you complain about how average Americans are "entitled" so strip away all social programs yet keep illegal wars of profit and tax breaks on the megawealthy going......you're a fool
Oh china, im a centrist and definitely not a fool. It was Obama who started this class warfare non sense. I dont think the country is divided. The vast majority of the country feels the way I do, not the way you do and that is evident byt the lack of support for the OWS movement at the moment. I also, never said strip away all social programs but we are as a country dependant on social programs and entitlements. We dont have the money. I work hard and dont need anyone to give me anything. I like mega rich ppl, makes me feel like I can be there one day. That evil 1% contributes 38% of the countries revenue and without them, your precious entitlements dont exist.
Well, I'm glad you're a centrist, as am I.....let us not overlook the outsourcing and offshoring of 100,000s of jobs by our beloved multi-national corporations that feel no obligation to pay taxes to America or keep jobs in America.......this is a direct result for these "entitlement" programs that are under such heavy attack......if our Govt was bought out by these said corporations and actually looked to provide beneficial oversight for the average american - a healthy work environment, a chance at social upward mobility instead of fighting like dogs over every scrap contractor job with no benefits that becomes available on the market - we wouldn't have the need for extended unemployment benefits and the upcoming baby boom retirement bubble that is looming.......look at the root of the problem.......loss of jobs and money to overseas countries - we are giving away our jobs/skills/knowledge to China and India for FREE and are feeling the pain now because of it......
China – its a global market. Small business' in America have been squeezed by gov regulations, which will now include the new healthcare bill which many cant afford. We cannot make laws telling companies they cant outsource. What about companies like Honda, Toyaota Kia, BMW? They all outsourced to the US. if you want more jobs then make it easier for business to thrive. Also, 1%ers create jobs, they start companies because they have the capital. My job is a direct result of a rich-a$$ 1%er who uses his money to create jobs. If he wasnt as rich, he wouldnt take the financial risk and therefore I wouldnt be employed. Be carefull what you wish for.
its a global market sure, but not very fair when everything is made in china and forced down the consumer's throat with hardly any other choices to buy from.......and we sure can create laws that tax "Multi-national" American companies that continually outsource jobs so we can make up the loss in revenue......yes of course, either way the consumer is going to feel the brunt, but at least it would be nice knowing that the avg American isn't losing their job, benefits and will be forced to work until they drop dead on the job at age 85 because there's nothing else to do all the while Mega corporations lobby the Govt to pass legislation that benefits only them and they pay hardly any taxes to a country that they feel no obligation towards......It's a global market, yes, but we can still look out for the average American....you're just saying everything is fine the way it is, except we need to cut out medicaid/medicare and unemployment benefits without providing a solution to cutting those benefits
I THINK WE SHOULD BEABLE TO TAKE OUT ANY ONE THAT IS A THREAT IN THE WORLD. just saying there doesnt need to be this un needed use violence.
Due process? We don't need no stinking due process.
Nice Blazing Saddles reference lol
Treasure of Sierra Madre.
YouBetcha
Life ain't a MOVIE.
Although being American, and having wall-to-wall macho TV since you were kneehigh to a grasshopper, YOU probably lost track of reality way back !!!!!! For sure you can't speak or think for yourself.
Chin Tu Fat
1.	The penal codes that people object to in the Sharia are in the Bible as well.
2.	Honor killing is a complete falsehood. Idiots who associate this with Islam are proving them to be a bunch of morons.
3.	Vote for Ron Paul! He is the only one who can save this country. Otherwise we are doomed!
4.	Jews are waiting for the anti-christ. Muslims and Christians are waiting for the Christ. Christ will kill the anti-christ.
5.	There are "Muslim-extremists" paid to falsely portray Islam as if we are fools and we believe what they say.
6.	There are "Muslim-liberal-extremists" paid to falsely portray Islam to the extent that it no longer is Islam but some messed up liberal stuff.
7.	No thank you, my forefathers were not apes and monkeys. And living cells did not magically evolve from lifeless gaseous matter.
8.	Muslims are getting beat up because they have left Islam and Sharia. But more the hate, lies and oppression there is against them, the more they will become stronger and come back to Islam.
9.	Sharia laws are laws of our Creator, Whose land we walk on, Whose air we breathe every second of our lives.
10.	The best act for Satan and his children is to take away the life of a human baby.
11.	Atheist folks are much dumber than I thought they were.
12.	Kuffar have made a firm intention to disbelieve. So if you give them a life of eternity, they will still disbelieve. This explains torment in hell forever.
13.	9-11 was clearly an inside job.
14.	Injustice and peace cannot co-exist.
15.	Jesus never said I am God or worship me. He came to get rid of idolatry but Christians made him an idol and hence Christianity is pretty much a pagan religion.
16.	Filthy freemasons make money off of wars by selling and buying weapons, oil etc.
17.	Filthy freemasons make money off of objectifying women, abusing and exploiting human emotions of love and hate, greed, envy, jealousy, pride.
18.	Islam is the only religion that connects human beings to God and requires believers to purify their hearts and control their desires.
19.	Moses, Jesus, Muhammad were Prophets of God.
20.	Jews hate Muslims because the last Prophet of God did not come to the children of Israel, but to the descendents of Ishmael. But in reality they hate God – The Mighty and The Praiseworthy.
21.	In Hebrew and Aramaic, the name of God is Alaha/Eloh/Ilah. In Arabic the name of God is Allah. Be careful when you curse your own Creator.
22.	People don't like to get their toes stepped on AND WE ARE DROPPING 1000-POUND BOMBS ON INNOCENT PEOPLE in the Muslims countries. They love their children, parents and families just like we do. They are not leaving us alone so easily.
23.	Be honest and sincere in your pursuit of the truth.
Chris Bawron
Some interesting points. I do agree with most of them believe it or not.
Wow nice conspiracy rant. You are quite the pathetic individual. You have no facts to back up anything of this non sense. You insult ppl like me who are atheist for no good reason. You believe 9/11 was an inside job....then clearly you know nothing about physics which shows why your understanding of how life evolved is so asinine. Glad I dont live next to you.
Tie Mie Shu
@Punkass
I'd never thought that I would be able to hurt the feelings of an Athiest. But I do apologize. I am sure you folks do hold certain truths close to your heart and you folks do get offended by certain things in life.
Well, as far as 9/11 being an inside job, you need to rely on experienced architects and engineers working independently. I would rather trust the experts than the politicians. Look it up on youtube, google etc. there are hundreds of non-Muslim architects and engineers who support the idea of it being an inside job.
You didnt hurt my feelings, its just insulting. You want ppl to respect your're beliefs which I do then you need to respect someone else's. Also, youtube is not a reference. Steel will start to lose structural integrity at around 1000 degrees F. Jet fuel burns at around 1800 degrees F. Just because someone supports your theory doesnt make it right.
Then , why are the muslims killing each other with suicide bombs at Mosques ?
Good point arlene – bet he can't answer THAT one!
Refer point # 8
Are you blind?
Increase your dosage.
Dupert Krodstich Kamogowalosky
You must be out of your mind for speaking the truth. Get over it and Ron Paul is not winning. He is too good to be a president. The way this "democratic" system is designed is to serve the shadow zionist government and the rich/influencial of the country. I must admit some thought stimulating points.
And to think some people were worried Bush might listen to their phone conversations.... Obama raises the ante... he listens to the conversations then kills you with a missile.
urmomlol
Wait, I thought terrorism was just made up by Bush so he could start wars because, like, he hates brown people and wanted to increase the value of Dick Cheney's stock portfolio or something. Why is Obama going along with it still? I'm confused!
Anyway, I thought the whole world was supposed to love us now that we proved how chill and enlightened we are by electing a cool black dude 🙁
I don't think anyone said terrorism was made up. What was suggested is that Terrorism was used as an excuse to invade Iraq when they had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the US. I believe most people understand that there are terrorists in all countries. As for Dick Cheney , the Iraq war didn't damage his Halliburton stock.
Jamie5
AG Holder: So what happens when another country starts drone attacks in the US? Why wouldn't they, we are so in love with the philosophy of an eye for an eye, how could we question it? How is it that a drone attack is any part of due process?? It may not be assassination, but it is summary execution. That is not part of due process, sir, this day or any other.
Jaime5: Due process does not apply to enemy combatants and most "executions" are carried out with the blessing of the host nation. The only time that hasnt really been true was during the Osama raid when we couldnt take the chance. If a foreign country wants to fly drones in the US they would have to appeal to teh US Gov but since there is really no good reason for that it probably will never happen. "What ifs" dont really get us anywhere...
Pig Profit
Where were you on 9/11?
A brown guy
Where were you when the Alamo was attacked and when Pearl Harbor was attacked? 9-11 is over with. It is completely irrelevant i9n today's age. Get over it.
I guess the cool black dude just wasnt cool enough....c'est la vie.
And once "Terrorism" was established in the USA – it became an excellent method of the control of your citizens!
America has become the biggest open prison in history. If not, then tell me:
Why are camps being built all over US
Why can you no longer have private cell phone conversations / text messages
Why can private trips using your SatVav be tracked
Why are individual tracking implants inserted during operations and into children – supposedly as a protection against child snatching
What kinda camps and where exactly? My phone conversations are private, pretty sure no ones too concerned about what Im saying. As far as satnav goes, well, a satelite has to pin point your location based on time. You are automaticall tracked simply by turning it on. If you dont like that, then dont use it. By an old school hardcopy map...they still work. And how many parents do you know had their kids implanted with tracking devices? Not dont think you're playing with a full deck buddy.
FBI agents had identified al-Awlaki as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator.[61][127]
Al-Awlaki's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, the jihadist killer in the 2009 Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, and the 2010 Times Square bomber. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Awlaki's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs
Nic_Driver
rogerr
"Not for traitors, deemed a threat from an official elected by the voters".
Is that what passes as ok for you rogerr? This is all you need before its ok to kill someone? Really?
Do something about it then...call your congressman. Really, execute your rights as an American...but as long as you live in the US, you will abide by the laws created by elected officials, that you elect. So if there is something you don't like, then get it changed. But there is no international or national law restricting our actions against traitors. A traitor is someone who is deedmed such by an elected official.
"A traitor is someone who is deedmed such by an elected official."
No, I'm afraid it's not rogerr. It's not even close to the definition nor is it close to justification for state sponsored murder.
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. The CONGRESS shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason. Pretty much sums it up for you. Article III, Section 3.
What's your point rogerr? That I'm right? The definition you've provided says "convicted by no less than two witnesses" yet you made the claim that all it took was to be "deemed by an elected official".
Drowlord
Why don't you save your ire and indignation for an actual situation where targeted military action intentionally and unreasonably kills an American. I get that you and your kind are afraid of slippery slopes, but I agree with Holden in that you can't fine tune every detail in every law to authoritatively determine exactly what action is ideal in every situation. That would, indeed, paralyze our military in much the way it has screwed up our domestic legal system. Better to have generalized rules in place and sensible people in decision-making roles.
The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombings are still in jail, having been convicted of their crime. Are you suggesting that the rule of law doesn't work?
"Better to have generalized rules in place and sensible people in decision-making roles."
This is wrong on so many levels but mostly because we have had no sensible people in decision making rolls since King George the Liar illegally stole the presidency from Gore. Also "generalized" rules is something we should not have. The rules should be very clear with no wiggle room for misinterpretation.
bl4ck0utsUn
Yes! Being manipulated into a war to make defence contractors and your bestest buddies rich, drive up oil prices that back the American dollar, all the while using the cow toing media to meet your agenda's, "they will follow us back here!" defcom yellow is now defcom RED! The real terrorist left office just under four years ago! Could we please Drone him and his buddies?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"..unless we don't of course...nevermind...
That is the declaration of independence. It is not a document with measurable legal weight, rather exactly what the name implies, a Declaration of the United States independence from England. The Constitution is the foundation on which Federal Laws are built. You are taking it out of context.
Right, because they are only "inalienable rights" under certain circumstances…wow…
Ok, 8th grade civics for Nic_Driver: The constitution is the baseline for Federal Laws and Congressional regulations. They are the supreme laws of the land. Actions of the military (in this case killing American Terrorists), is sanctioned by the executive branch (and Congress in the case of the US declaring war) and supported (or restricted) by the Supreme Court which determines the legality of those actions. If the President allows this, it is because it is legal in accordance with our legislative and judicial branch. If someone opposes it, it will recieve review from Supreme Court. So if you have a problem with this, call your elected official...I'm guessing you won't do it, because you probably don't even know how to vote.
"Ok, 8th grade civics for Nic_Driver:"
Ok, elementary school logic for rogerr. "Inalienable rights" are the antithesis of the "circumstantial rights" you espouse.
And the "Inalienable rights" of life, liberty and persuit of happiness, can be secured if you commit crimes deemed a threat by elected officials...I doubt prisoners have liberty and are able to persuit their happiness...but they are in jail because they are a credible threat. Once again, taken out of context, relying on the Declaration of Independence as the code of law...which it is not.
I don't know why you keep holding to the "elected officials" bit rogerr, that means nothing. Our values as Americans don't change every four years. Either they are inalienable rights or they aren't, how do you view them?
and roger, "self-evident, inalienable rights" are not covered under law because they are, by definition, inalienable rights, it's self evident, can you see?
Kill them too along with the pig rush limbaugh! 
I agree...he's a pig, but killing him for it would just make you a pig.
What about home-grown terrorists like Grover Norquist and the Tea Party? See what I mean, this could devolve into something messy very quickly.....
ipdaily
One countries terrorist is another countries freedom fighter.
Apparently, if you think someone is a terrorist you can kill him.
One has to wonder how differently Holder will feel once he is held accountable. 4 or 8, the Obama years won't last forever and when things are set right it will be time to pay the piper. It will be really sad to see an aged Holder imprisoned for his crimes.
Not even a MOCK TRIAL before they decide to kill American citizens abroad.......granted, this guy was scum and definitely an enemy to America, but where does the line get drawn if there are no concrete rules??? Especially if there is a big war that happens, you can bet future administrations will take Obama's example and take out Americans they deem "terrorists" left and right, and if some innocent Americans get killed in the slaughter, well it's just the price to pay for "freedom".......they already have the NDAA approved, this is getting way out of hand.......a dictatorship is being formed in our own country as we go around on righteous missions to oust dictators abroad........don't be fooled, sheep, this is FOR REAL
It's okay to kill any terrorist whether they are American or not! We gotta do what we gotta do! 
You're a terrorist - the govt said so, so prepare to die.
Spinning out of Control
I can see this spinning out of control real fast. I certainly do not want to live in a country with drones killing my neighbor for venting and taking out the whole block to do it. There goes our freemdom of speech.
Seems like the U.N. should be making the rules so everyone in the world is on the same page.
Whatever happened to Due Process? Why is GITMO still open?
Because due process is guaranteed by the constitution of the united states. Prisoners at GITMO are foreign nationals and do not rate it by UN laws of armed conflict. Any other questions about GITMO?
So if you are kidnapped by, say Mexico, and taken to an island, that is OK?
By the way, I served my last tours, before I retired, in Iraq. Not everyone at Gitmo, participated in "armed conflict". (I know you have read about the limo driver)
No worries Al, good to be speaking with another veteran (Iraq 06-07, 08-09, Afg 09-10). Those who are detained, were so, for a good reason (either a percieved or known threat was determined). If international law does not mandate a court date by set parameters, then we either have released them when they are deemed innocent, or they still constitute that threat. We have a moral imperative to release inncent people, but we have that same ethical demand to keep bad people in jail.
So those 'inalienable rights' due all humans aren't really, are they? We here in America hold these truths to be self-evident...or do we?
Not for traitors, deemed a threat from an official elected by the voters...and don't use the Declaration of Independence...the US government does not uphold the Dec of Independence...they uphold the constitution...google that one before you try to show me up, haha.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Where does it say that we treat all as equal????? We do provide for the common defense by deterring terrorist threats and therefore secure the blessing of liberty to yourself and your children...
So then you don't hold those truths to be self-evident rogerr?
No all men are created equal,, and are guaranteed life, liberty and the persuit of happiness until they begin to pose a threat to the life of others. When a substantial and quantifiable threat is determined by an elected official, that infringes on the well being of the populace, their liberties are secured. That is the backbone of criminal justice.
rogerr,
There you go again with that "elected official" garbage.
They can issue an arrest warrant maybe but no one is convicted without a trial, it's really that simple.
HONESTLY!
@muslim American.
The first sura of the Quran is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)
Muhammad was once asked if these words pertained to Jews and Christians. His response was, "Whom else?" (Bukhari 56:662).
Thomaz
I wonder how the U.S would feel if other countries, including North Korea, Iran, China, and so on, were to put the same policy in place. Would the U.S government think it is fine for these countries to come into U.S soil and kill their nationals?
If the US government could not and would not defend their citizens and the rule of law, yes. But as usual with such ridiculous questions, there is no comparison.
Your response is empty. The reason for the article is to point out that Mr Holder is stating that it is "OK" to break standing US law.
March 6, 2012 at 11:57 am |
Remember that the U.S law is not the rule of law around the world, despite what others might say.
I agree. Let Iran kill Annie Oakly because she was labeled a "Terrorist" and see how America reacts. This is BS.
I guess Obama and Holder are fans of that wild west justice–where they shot or hung people first and asked questions later-good bye to justice for all–innocent until proven guilty-the right to a trial by your peers! Can you say oppressive dictatorship boys and girls!!
Read alAwalkis' history. You see he was no fan of the USA. The Yemini Gov. had an 'oulaw' order on him Shoot to kill.
So we should give up our principles, our rule of law, our idea of justice and right and wrong to sink to the lowest level–because of what another country thought about doing to us–Like children on a playground slapping each other and saying"He did it first"-TRULY IGNORANT on the part of the US
I agree. Unfortunantly, our prior "Wild West" president put this into place. Since our current president was a lawyer, I was hoping he would have done away with this, instead of continuing to use it. (same with Gitmo, wire tapping without warrents, drone overflights for search withour warrents, etc...)
zionismbuster
the worst kind of terrorists, who kill and exploit other human beings all for money and power, are also legislators, prosecuters, judges, juries, and executioners. for the time being. but their rotten days are numbered.
johnnyoh
Amazing the liberal Obama lovers don't call for this traitor to the constitution's head. This guy is pure evil. Anyone who supports such a policy without due process is ant- american and should be prosecuted. You vote for Obama you vote for evil to win.
Obama knows who to target as he is probably an Al Quida himself....why do you think he knew where to find Bin Laden? How does he know where these people are? Intelligence? Probably not – I bet Obama sits there and figures out who is next on the list to win over Americans so he can stay in office ILLEGALLY yet another term! America has forgotten where it has come from and we will see it all unravel in the near future! God have mercy on our souls!
Retired Floridian
So, murdering citizens is OK without judge, jury, or trial?! One less vote from your boss for this plus the fact that Obama is kissing Israels' butt and threatening Iran while ignoring the hypocritical, Israeli, illegal nuke stockpile with which it is trying to foist its' policies on everyone else. Puke!!!!!!!!!
So by your logic, if Osama bin Laden had a US passport, we could not kill him in a raid? And Israel has nothing to do with it, people have been using them as a scapegoat for years...we are an independent nation and are not handcuffed to their foreign policies. Read "Securing the Covenant." It will shed light on how we have diverged from their foreign ideals since 1974.
how israel lies the U.S. into wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
And what exactly does Israel have to do with Holder stating policy regarding terrorists? Last I checked, Holder works for President Obama, not Benjamin Netenyahu (sp?).
lowlife israel first pigs are nothing but traitors to the U.S...
they have done more damage to the U.S. then all muslim terrorists combined...
AIPAC/Israel=9/11
Starzee
How cheap is the rent there in Idiotville?
Danger! Run for your lives!!! There's an anti-Semite idiot in our midst.
Ghandi
I think that "Hope and Change" Obama was talking about aint so good for peoples health. How long will it be till they are killing those that just speak out in protest against what they want to do? We are in a police state now and that is not what people thought Hope and Change meant. Better vote for Ron Paul or we are doomed to the trash heap of the world.
Skullfucker
He said that you could "hope" for "change". He never said you'd get it.
This is the first time that i have agreed with the AG, now if he were to leave the country
oldbear60
This idea that you are protected against the government that you are advocating the over throw of, or that you should be given all these rights that you were preparing to deny others is a crock of #$%. No one should enjoy protection from their own actions and killing them saves the expense to the taxpayers of the nation they are trying to attack the expense of a legal defense and incarceration.
Joe Sixpack
Iran justified assassinating a political activist in Houston because they said she was a terrorist. The Nazis called the Dutch resistance in the Netherlands terrorists too. Any time you want to do something sinister, call the other guys terrorists so that people will go along with it. *sigh*. We used to be the good guys.
It is based around point of view. Do Americans, plotting with known terrorist, display a clear threat to your way of life...yes...we are the good guys...you just take for granted the freedoms afforded to you.
The good guys provide Due Process, it's the bad guys that don't. We're now the bad guys, get it?
So al-awaliki did not have due process? He was seen on numerous al-qaeda propaganda videos calling for the murder of Americans. Bet you have sympathy for Osama bin Laden too...poor guy, never had a fair trial.
Are the two examples you've provided inclusive to the issue? Why would you pretent that you've answered my question if they aren't? Are you having a hard time understanding my point or is it rather that your ok with our nation not being a nation of Law and Order?
@Joe: there is actually a definition to being a terrorist – an important part of that is the deliberate targeting of civilians. The catch 22 here is that a terrorist is not part of a uniformed militia, they are essentially civilians themselves, bent on killing other civilians for idiological/financial/etc gain (as causing the masses fear is a force multiplier). As such, you must be able to kill these "civilians" somehow – I think this is what the AG means by this policy being more a "sign of our times" than betrayal of our values.
There is no proof Iran was responsible for the death of their citizen in houston, its speculation. Could have been a gang initiation for all we know. Make sure to get your facts right next time. Cheers
it's the US and izreal against the world...what a joke our AIPAC congress has made out of the U.S.
9% all time lowst appoval rating for congress...pretty much says it all for israel to
holder should just come out and say 'weeza hav adopted corrupt izraeli tactics and Iza do what eva ma masta in izreal sayz".....pleaza hand me da vazoline
Ok, so you are legitimatly racist...didn't realize that I was debating a Limbaugh. Have a good existance living in a nation where you mock the freedoms (better people than you) provide.
usa isreal no
Rogerr go away you Zionist drone!
Got a rally to go to?
The Koran, clearly states that anyone who is not Muslim should be put to death. So do we regard this as an act of terrorism by anyone who is Muslim?
no, because we dont have proof that the individual necessarily would act on this, regardless if it is what they believe or not.
Under this law we could ice someone for simply being a Muslim, because they are swearing oath to the koran, which could be deemed as a terroristic regime, right?
And would that be considered ok?
Once again, if you are affiliating with known terrorists, then you are at risk...very simple. It has nothing to do with being Muslim.
Roger, I remember when they deemed Cat Stevens a terrorist, then after an investigation he was cleared. But you ok if they would have shot him and any acquaintance of his, before they cleared his name? Thats just craziness supported by fear! And thats a very dangerous path to follow!
MuslimAmerican
Absolutely correct. I am Muslim and there are terrorists in ALL groups. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, etc... there will always be fundamentalist people
There are terrorists of all religions, races and origins. They are deemed a threat by their actions. Plotting with terrorists is that action. Do they warrant summary execution via drone attack...no. Until intelligence determines them a credible threat. Al-Awaliki was the known "American Spokesman" for al-Qaeda, that should be enough of a threat to warrant intervention.
Do you mean if your kid is on the same soccer team as someone who someone claims is a terrorists, you could be killed by the government?
It depends, after soccer practice do you then go to their house for an after game party, make a video proposing the killing of innocent americans, provide funding for terrorist groups, arrange transportation and safe haven for terrorist who later go and kill american servicemen and attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas 2007 using an underwear bomb. All things that al-awaliki admitted to on video... If so, then that is a really f-ed up soccer party, and yes, you should be targeted.
What you guys need realize is that the US legally at war with Al queda. Its not the regular war you think of, but WAR is WAR. They are out to kill Americans and America is out to kill them. If one of them so happens to be an American, SO BE IT. An American life is not worth more than any other life out there. Regardless of what country you are from, If you are at war with the US, then its ok if you are killed.
You guys think because the guy is American, he is immune, Please!!!! He gave up that right to be fairly tried when he started plotting to kill people.
I have also been reading some tale of just accusing anyone of being a terrorist, why are people so naive? Do you want him to come confess to you personally to prove that he is indeed a member of al queda, and has orchestrated many bombings?
You guys sit pretty in your houses becos the guys that are out to kill you (Al queda) are being taken out and for some reason you keep wondering why they are being taken out. maybe when one of them puts a bomb in you house, you'll realize the severity of the threat.
Till then, enjoy your freedom.
Fred Phred
Better to be safe than sorry, is what I always say.
Um the Qur'an states no such thing it says infidels... which is people that do not believe in the books of God meaning the Torah the Gospel or Qur'an for those ignorant enough not to know the truth... Honestly I think some people should simply keep their mouths shut if they have NO idea what they are talking about.
infidels are anyone who doesn't believe in the koran you moron! Thats why they can the Jewish people infidels! Even though the Jewish people believe in god! Take your own advice and keep your mouth shut, as you dont know what you are talking about! Nimrod!
israel is like the red headed mentally retarded inbred spoiled child that no one wants to play with..or the spoiled chlid that klills the neighbors pet for no reason then goes running to hide behind big sugar daddy USA's pant leg crying "daddy daddy help me....son why did you kill their pet? daddy dadday it was thorwing rocks at me..it was launching bottle rockets at me..it looked at me wrong...it had a nuclear weapon" enough with the turd that cried wolf..it's time for Daddy to take the spoiled Israel's turd filld diaper and smear it in spolied little israel's face and make him eat it..here's a matza ball for you phyco son ...enough is enough.
Ok...enough with the anti-semitism...if you are a closet case neo-nazi then fine...but you are mocking a nation that is friendly to the US, against Muslim based terrrorist organizations, against nuclear proliferation to rogue nations, and a constant deterrant for extremism in the Mid East. I am not Jewish or have sympatiest toward Israel, but they are the only ones there with a working government who has any resolve.
and how much vasoline did you use to pull that one out....lowlife israel first pigs are nothing but traitors to the U.S...
Haha, dirty terrorist, believe in the Quran but cannot read it because you don't speak arabic. You cannot even read the words of the book you follow. You have to have someone interpret it for you. Illiterats swine, learn how to speak the word of Mohammad, then tell me what he preaches. That is the reason why you are so easily tricked into blowing yourselves up.
sieg heil you under educated nut job. Try reading history not colored by your anti-semtic view and think . You might be saveable, but I doubt it.
waaaah waaaah...who am i....waaah waaaah wmd's waaah waaah..nuclear weapons waah waaah....the world hats us waah waaah....3000 years of persecution...yeah go figure
By your stupid logic Joe.. you are forgetting one thing. That retarded kid.. has nukes.. and has figured out a way to hide that form that rest of the world, with minimal detection. They arent as retarded as you think they are.. but you are as retarded as we think you are..
welcome to the jewnited states of the turd called izreal..
AIPAC/israe=9/11 and has destroyed the U.S.
You are crazy, they are the only nation in the Middle East who has maintained a constant dialogue with the US and is pro-democracy. Lets abandon our only friend there...brilliant.
you should reread your history... Egypt has been in contact with USA longer then Israel has been around try again.
No try again, state of Israel and it's relations with the US began in 1949. The Egyptian revolution occurred on 23 July 1952, after that Nassar began diplomatic dialogue with the US. So, I repeat, we have had a longer standing relationship with the Israeli government than any other middle eastern nation...thanks for allowing me to clarify that for you. Any time...
We live in scary days indeed. I'm not sure who I fear more however, our government run rampant and out of control or people who are accused of terrorism by someone, somewhere and then murdered without a trial. Those are the actions of terror, we have become what we despise.
I think, that unless you are planning attacks against the US, in a rogue nation, affiliating yourself with known terrorists...you are probably safe. In fact, I would argue you are safer now.
I suppose you also believe that people are terrorists simply by having been arested and placed in GITMO, the stain on the soul of America, right?
Are you really crying for those guys in Guantanimo Bay? you know that they have HBO, a new $750,000 basketball court and rec court facility being built? And yes, I watched the documentary about the place. Stain on the soul of America?
Ironic...Holder doesn't believe in teh death penalty for those who were convicted of atrocious crimes (or terrorism, if you wish) against other ctizens, but he is okay with this...
So if we decide Eric Holder is a Terrorist for killing American citizens can we go ahead shoot him on sight?
No, only certain people get to choose who gets targeted...this is just as bad as anything Bush ever did.
Right, lets shed a tear for al-awaliki...a man who certainly deserves our sympathy.
Syn Holliday
Some people are so dramatic, no you don't shed a tear for any terrorist. How is that related? The illogic is comical. Use your head. Terrorists deserve any just punishment they get, but it's the method we use to judge and prosecute that matters, that should be consistent with American values, that should always have the element of checks-and-balances. As soon as you give power to any individual to decide someone is guilty without hearing or trial, you're tempting corruption.
roggerr don't be an idiot, no one is shedding a tear for anyone, there is more to it than just guy who may very well be guilty. If we start killing American citizens without due process because someone that has the power thinks you're a terrorist then yours and every Americans Constitutional Rights are in jeopardy and to defend such acts shows that you and others like you are the true terrorists.
Haha, so I'm the terrorist? Very well (comical because I am in the military). But anyone who openly particiaptes in armed hostilities towards the US while remining shielded by the rights afforded to them by the constitution are cowards and do not deserve those rights to being with. They are traitors, and deserve what is coming to them. I am not taking about people who pickett, protest our government or even throw rocks at police. But people who are americans, who go to a foreign nation with the intent to harm Americans, do not rate their nationality, and are not protected by the rights guaranteed to a citizen. A citizen is someone who pledges allegiance tot he united states.
rogerr I know it's hard for your small brain to comprehend, so you can go back to your COD now and pretend you're in the military.
Lulz & holliday: can you guys tell me the difference between Al-Awlaki and Bin ladin outside of the fact that that 1 is a US citizen and the other is not.
So if it is Ok to kill bin laden, why isnt it ok to kill Al-Awlaki, once you are a terrorist (proven), you give up those rights.
Also, if they did decide to arrest him, would you go serve him his warrant in the middle of the desert in yemen?
ProphetJesusisnotgod
Every one go to google in search who terrorised who, who killed who, get a calculator if u need. Western n USAss war criminals state sponsor terrorist thugs regime (PREVIOUS OR CURRENT) have invaded, occupied, terrorised, killed, destructed, abducted, kidnapped, tortured n thrown thousand of innocent defenders of their beloved n sovereign lands. More than hundreds of thousand in IRAQ n same amount of in AFGHANISTAN n PAKISTAN plus proxy wars in PALESTINE, LEBANON, SUDAN etc. etc. etc. Now come to conclusion who the real terrorist is..............www.ifamericansonlyknew.org http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org
DeperLee
MarineJ- because our constitution was written to protect rights that the founding fathers thought were granted by birth. Killing individuals without trial by jury gives executive power that can be used against any American. I am not saying Anwar Al-Awlaki was innocent. I am only saying he deserved an opportunity to be apprehended alive and tried by a jury of his peers. As I would expect the same if I was suspected of a crime.
MarineJ
There is a solution to this, don't be suspect of a crime, be aware of who you communicate with and who they are connected to. I'm not saying go balls to the wall super detective, but these people know what they are doing. They know they are guilty. As for they person who was with the guy killed, wrong place wrong time, but he should have known better. I'm sure he was not completely oblivious to the fact he was with a radical.
Ignore the Constitution and allow the Government to control your lives by means of fear and sudden death is your solution? Are you sure you're a Marine J?
patriotboy
That is the worst form of justification, "if your not guilty you have nothing to fear" was used by the Nazis as justification for turning in your neighbors for sedition against the Reich. I have no fear of a terrorist attack, bring it on, actually show me a home grown terrorist that has actually attacked with the FBI and CIA being involved ? Oklahoma City is hailed as a pure single terrorist acting alone but nothing could be further from the truth, it was just another false flag operation.
There is a long history of governments using fear of an outside invader to institute fascism and tyranny. I would rather live in a world where i could be attacked than live under the thumb of tyrants like Holder and Obama!
There are exceptions to all parts of the constitution. If you slander, then you lose your right to speech, if you condone violence, then you lose your right to gather. Etc... If you wish to keep your rights then don't break the law or commit/plot acts of terrorism. Millions of people live their lives everyday without having to worry because they know they are not doing anything wrong. The constitution protects those who uphold it. It cannot be a banner for those who commit acts that violate the people it is meant to protect.
This man who was killed knew what he was doing, likely knew he was a target and therefor I have no sympathy for him. The person who was killed with him should have been more aware of his company, which he likely knew was a radical. It is tragic when innocent people are harmed, but do not protect those who wish to do innocent people harm.
There are no exceptions to the Constitution. Guilty or innocent, all Americans are guaranteed certain Constitutional protections. A couple of those are the right to due process and the right to a fair trial by jury. Neither was afforded to Al Awalki.
Greg, as an American citizen, you have pledged your allegiance to the United States and as such you have your rights and your duties. They come hand in hand. When you leave the country to start plotting terrorist act against the US, that allegiance is no longer there and you are no longer guarateed all the rights that come with being a citizen. As a matter of fact, you have given up your right to be a citizen.
SWW
yet our founding fathers KILLED people to gain their freedom. George Washington personally killed how many Native Americans? Why? to protect his people. Abraham Lincoln ordered the killing of US Citznes, without due process, to maintain the Union. Al Qaeda is commiting acts of war against America, anyone that identifies with Al Qaeda is an enemy. In war (regardless what legal definition you want to place on it) people are either trying to kill you or you are trying to kill them. It is the dirty side of the human race that we can't all just get along. I'd rather see more of their side being killed that our side. it is not about nationality or religion, it is about their expressed wish to see Americans die. What are YOU willing to do to protect our way of life and your family?
tell it like it is brother. Man is an aggressive animal and that got him to the top of the heap, and now we fight each other to stay on that top. I'd rather be on top than be eaten.
Damagon
This is all becuae of Bush's war on terror BS. War is against another natiion. Period. A terrorist should be tried, and in most cases should be dealt with the death penalty. We didn't kill the guy that was given a fake bomb by an undercover agent, even though we knew exactly that his intent was to kill thousands. i don't see why we have to do any different just becuase they're overseas.
The worse part is that this almost sound political, Obama wants to be reelected and he's doing the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do just to please the other side. Shame.
Terrorists should be killed instantly without regarding where they come from.
steachent
...like the Sons of Liberty?
Think before speaking.
agree kind of
I agree in spirit, if you're targeting the head of an enemy terrorist organization who is actively plotting to kill americans... sure. But the problem is, if you're using deadly force, how do you prove without a reasonable doubt?
In Osama Bin Ladin's case, it was different. He was the de facto leader and claimed responsibility for thousands of deaths. But what if the issue is more grey... someone you haven't proven, and you're relying on "intelligence". You just shoot someone with no case, no chance to defend themselves?
That opens up a whole can of worms.... I don't know if a world where shoot first, justify after the buriel, would be one we'd want to live in.
People tend to forget our freedoms, and protections when someone is accused, but not tried.
This goes against the grain of what we believe in. And to what cost? Fear is no reason, to act inhumane. The government can't be allowed to off people without proof of treason, or acts of violence upon innocent people.
His videos were all over youtube! When you try the leader of a terrorist group it becomes a rallying point for his terror group!
When I took an oath to protect this country, I was specifically told that defecting in a time of war is met with a death sentence. We are still in the war on terrorism, it may be in decline but it is still there, and if a U.S. citizen is involved in terrorist plots, I say they are just as guilty as non-citizens and deserve what they get for their betrayal to the American people.
You want to scream about their rights, say that when they are screaming with a bomb at you, or plotting any attack against children, parents, and other innocents.
When a citizen betrays their country, I say they forfeit their rights and protection by the constitution.
Finally a voice of reason! al Awlaki should have died!
A. The "War on Terror" is a misnomer. The United States cannot declare war on a terrorist group. That is reserved for Nation States.
B. Defection rules apply only to soldiers, not U.S. citizens.
C. What makes this country great is that our Constitutional protections are never forfeited. The U.S. government is bound by that great document and the leaders of our country swore an oath to abide by and protect our Constitution. Unless I pose an immediate and imminent threat to the safety of the public, the U.S. government is forbidden from using lethal force and must afford me due process and a fair trial.
remind me not to stop the U.S. Citizen who has a plot to take down whatever you are in, I'm sure that if you found out that someone was targeting your job, or your child's school, you would not care if they were a citizen or not and would want them stopped regardless of the methods.
It is easy to sit and defend these people when you have a 99% chance of never having to deal with the consequences of these people's actions.
"Unless I pose an immediate and imminent threat to the safety of the public, the U.S. government is forbidden from using lethal force and must afford me due process and a fair trial."
Greg, Al-Awlaki was an imminent threat to the public.
The terrorists could give crap about our laws. don't try to apply logic or laws to their decisions to kill people. They don't care. They will never stop till they achieve whatever twisted life they want. I would have thought that the events of 9/11 would have convinced the american public the extent of the threat. These people are willing to kill themselves just to kill you. they use our sense of 'fair play' to take advantage of us. I mean all citizens of all countries, not just america. Look at the news, they are striking all countries. People are dying under their hands everyday.
Sorry, bud. You're not afforded due process if you are an illegal combatant.
Well some rules are stupid a should be broken since our enemy is very aware of these laws and is good at finding loopholes. I remember stupid rules being in our ROE while in Cuba such as "I will not fire across the perimeter or fence line into communist Cuba unless myself, another Marine or base resident is fired upon" so basically a Cuban soldier could be pointing his AK directly at me but I have to wait for him to fire before protecting myself. Thats just plain stupid just like you thinking that we have to wait to take action against a known terrorist to ensure that an attack is immanent just because he is an American citizen living abroad. You better take the shot when you have the chance to take the shot or by the time you go through all this mumbo jumbo it could be too late and than we will be morning the death of a few thousand more American citizens.
USAss war criminals state sponsor terrorist thugs regime have killed thousand times more, than so called Al Qaeda or any group who r against the USAss brutal, bias foreign policy, let alone USAss war mongers regime have invaded, occupied, destructed, killed, abducted, kidnapped, tortured n thrown thousands of defenders of their beloved n sovereign countries n blamed them b terrorist. Western n USAss terrorist regime (Previous or current) can not eradicate terrorist or terrorism, while they r sending their state sponsor terrorist thugs around the world specially Muslim lands n terrorising (NATO n ISAF etc) n killing by tons of bomb thrown out from the sky, this not a brave men job, this is nothing but cowardness, while they being coward they have no shame of killing elders men, women n children. War criminals state sponsor terrorist thugs so called World leaders must give up their terrorist activities around the world specially in Muslim land n work on peace only, than terrorism could b eradicate otherwise being worlds terrorist u can not eradicate terrorism. http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org
I smell a terrorist...
LOL! What a boat load of crap!
Scott in Pgh
When I took mine, I was told the same- the problem, as I see it, is that Holder was very clear that he is not speaking about al-Awlaki specifically. He's talking about the general theory of what this administration believes. He is establishing a precedent, that suspicion of a perceived threat, established by an undetermined group of individuals, without established publicly known criteria, can be considered legitimate due process before carrying out a summary execution.
Al-Awlaki receiving an appointment for an early dirt nap doesn't bother me at all, but our government expanding its power to this level does. The ability do make up what due process means to fit their current whims in not a good thing.
Scott, i understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree. 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."
So that makes it pretty specific that they are not just talking about some theoritical perceived threat. and I am NOT an Obama supporter.
SWW- I'm going to have to disagree on the point of how specific he's being- nothing in the article or the video gives anything specific as far as where the line is.
Given the track record of the last few administrations, accountability seems to be nonexistant in government these days. If we want to look at Holder, you only need to go back as far as the recent fast & furious fiasco.
When you couple this with events like the signing of the NDAA, it does not paint a very bright picture. At what point are we going to no longer allow our government, the executive branch specificly, to continue to create new powers for itself?
I have no problem with my government killing enemy combatants regardless of their nationality. In war, if there is an enemy shooting at you, you don't have time to stop and ask to see his passport before you shoot back. However, they can't have it both ways, if they use the "the operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war" justification, how can they then try them in civilian courts? I guess the question that needs to be asked is, are we at "war" with Al Qaesda?
When the US government takes you out with a unmanned drone strike due to something you've said, I hope you remember saying that you don't mind giving our government that power.
If I am ever an enemy combantant trying to kill americans I'll remember to duck...
II believe it was more than what he said. He was behind several plots to kill americans on this soil, and elsewhere.
.. Why did Barak Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize, again?
You are a member of al qaeda you will be killed simple as that. Who cares what citizenship you possess. Like being a US citizen should make u special!
If you are a US citizen you are granted rights under the constitution. That is what 'makes you special'. Allowing adminstrations to kill without due process opens a door for future adminstrations to kill when anyone 'poses a threat'. Posing a threat, to some adminstrations, could mean speaking out against policies made.
If you give an inch, they will take a mile. A few thousand feet have already been taken. Please take notice.
bull! You are still human and taking a life. Being a US citizen doesnt give u protection if
You are a terrorists. If you are French then u dont get a fair trial, huh?
A Policeman can shoot and kill a suspected criminal if there is a clear a present danger to the public without a judge and jury convicting the suspected criminal. What is the difference?
If you are French, than you are France's problem.
I sincerely hope you or any of your family members are not charged with murder. Under your ideal policy, they should be taken out by unmanned drone strikes without the chance for a fair trial.
NYSDavid
First, the rights of a US citizen do not follow him or her everywhere. For example, if a US citizen is found to have a bag of marijuana on him or her and is arrested in New York City or Chicago then the individual is entitled to be Mirandized prior to any questioning. The individual is also entilted to an attorney and a "speedy" trial. If the same individual is arrested in Thailand, he or she has no Miranda rights and may not have any other rights that the individual would have in the US.
Second, if a US citizen is actively assisting the enemy then they have no special rights that the other enemy combatents have. Do you believe that the US citizens who went to Nazi Germany and assisted the Nazi government in either a propaganda role or a combat role had a special right not to be targeted.
A policeman is expected to attemt to apprehend the person prior to killing them. Typically investigations are opened within police forces if deadly force is used to appprehend a suspect because that is not standard protocol.
Anwar Al-Awlaki was taken out by unmanned drone strike. There was no attempt to apprehend him without deadly force. In the process, another American was killed.
Service members swear to protect against all threats, domestic and foreign. Keyword there, "threats." A Threat is an act in of its self.
Referring to my post. You decide to betray your country and cause harm to American civilians and service members, why should you be granted the freedoms, rights and protections you are trying to destroy.
NYS David- I believe every American has a right to due process and trial by jury regardless of the crime committed. As far as the rights of an American travelling out of the country- If someone commits a crime in another country than I cannot control how that country punishes the individual. I am speaking only on the USA killing an American citizen.
What are you talking about, "no attemp to apprehend him"?!?! you have no idea what our government did or did not do to try to capture him. and further more, if a policeman is at a donut shop, and a armed robber comes in and tries to shoot the clerk, the cop can shoot the guy first. No investigation, no warrant. if al-Awaki didn't know we were trying to kill him, he was stupid. I think he had AMPLE warning that he was a target.
@DeperLee Ok next time an American is living in Yemen and making threats and planning actual attacks we will send you over to attempt to capture him and when you fail which you will than we will send in a Drone. I bet your the same type of person saying we are not the World Police yet you expect us to put boots on the ground in Yemen to arrest someone. I can't believe you really said that we didn't attempt to apprehend him like you really know all that much about this case to make statements like that. I served 8 years in the Marine Corps and have been all over the world and guess what? No one goes to Yemen trying to apprehend anyone, the government of Yemen was given ample time by the U.S. to a apprehend al-Awlaki and they failed which by the way could have lead to the downing of a commercial plane so the U.S. stepped in took him out which I think is great.
DRTSAT
I'm all about U.S. citizens being guaranteed their rights under the Constitution but when they swaer an oath to attack their own country and undertake terrorist training to carry out attacks they are legitimate targets. It's absolutely unreasonable to expect a Soldier or Marine to determine if this is a person that can be arrested. If they are engaged in a fight the terrorist dies regardless of his nationality. Yes, if it's possible, arrest them and bring them back for trial. If they can be targeted in a raid and taken alive then, yes, try them. But AL Awlaki was not accessable and the means to dispose of his filth was appropriate.
When someone takes an oath to attack, thats an act of treason. However you must have undeniable proof of that oath, or bad intention. Otherwise we're allowing the government to crosshair anyone, that they deem a threat without proof of offence!
Due process anyone? Seriously, now all the government needs to do is change the definition of "terrorist" to fit domestic enemies and voila! they can take out anyone they want without due process. DHS has some interesting memos on who they think are potential domestic terrorists. People should not acquiesce to this without understanding that one day those in power may come for you.
So, if someone thinks that Holder has violated the constitution, acted against America's interests, and thus commited treason, is that considered "due process" under his new definition, or is this only a one way street?
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
jrh
notice that thepassage you reference clearly and expressly addresses PENAL procedures. Aligning yourself with the enemy force during a declared conflict is a military affair, not a penal system affair. If a guy regardless of nationality tries to shoot a US citizen independantly, he is treated as a criminal and murder suspect. If that guy declares himself an acting member of a force we are at armed conflict with and tries to shoot somebody, he is not a criminal. He a armed opposition, and a valid military target.
If someone has declared themselves in opposition of a war that is not treasonous, or an act of war.
However if someone declares themself a soldier of the opposition, then yes. That would make them a legitimate military target.
The boundaries lay within the burden of proof. If you kill anyone, you should be required to have proof of their I'll intentions. Thats all im saying. We can't just give the government the right to deem someone a terrorist for any reason.
Folks,
This is wrong. It is wrong to do it to anyone whether they are a citizen or not because that is a fundamental rule of law for us. We treat people right and justly, isn't that what we say? What if you are an outspoken critic of an adminiatration and go on a vacation to ANYWHERE outside the USA, can you be killed for no reason by a drone strike? That is the problem.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood
•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration of Independence, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
•No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
•No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
shalinke
Anyone who trust in a politician's or political party's promises is naive to think that they'll fulfill those promises when elected. A President has to do whatever necessary to solve an imminent threat to his country. It doesn't matter if he is republican or democrat. The next President won't be any different. We live in extraordinary time that need extraordinary measures. Al-Awlaki is no different than Bin Laden or any AlQaida terrorists. The only difference is national origin. Their goal is the same. They continue plotting and looking for innovative ways to kill the most Americans as possible. What if Al-Awlaki's next plot would had been successful and he slipped away again. It took 10 yrs to find Osama Bin Laden, and we still haven't found his deputy yet. We live in dangerous times and its sad that the US government has come to this. This is just a precedence of worst to come even in our own country.
stujordan
Murdering US citizens is wrong. They deserve a trial. There is NO excuse for targeting US citizens for assasination. If they are armed and shooting at US troops is another story. Blowing them up with drones IS murder. MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is some very dangerous stuff. Things like this are the seeds of totalitarian states. The government is using it to target "terrorists" who "pose an immanent threat". But the problem is, they get to define who's a "terrorist" and what an "immanent threat" is. Sure, right now it's Al Qaeda, but who's it going to be in 30, 50, or 100 years from now? We really need to think about how this can be misused in the future. What if sometime in the future the government defines a "terrorist" as simply someone who does not agree with their policies and is trying to peacefully organize opposition to them from outside the country? They could argue that this "terrorist's" opposition to their policies "poses an immanent threat" and he needs to be taken out.
This kind of thing has been going on for some time, in the form of secret government working through Latin American death squads. Now it can breathe free, out in the open, with the implied statement: "And what are you going to do about it, suckers?"
So Osama, Saddam, etc. could not be killed by a done strike because we wanted them captured alive so they could pay for their crimes, but a U.S. citizen... ah who cares... just another terrorist...
drone, not done*
The Obama regime is guilty of placing America in harm's way through it's zionist foreign policy. 9-11 happened because of the zionist american foreign policy.
Holder states that when an American poses an imminent threat of violent attack against America, that person can be assassinated. Obama's foreign policy is responsible for all this madness.
This unconstitutional law from Obama applies only to those who oppose zionist aggression and evil.
Wake up America – the zionists have taken over our government – Obama is a zionist puppet.
This war on terror will never end.
It isn't zionists who are directly to blame, it is the long-time assertion that secret government may go abroad and through surrogates kill those it deems a threat. The 9/11 events only enabled this to become a more open assertion of what has been in the past death squads and frank assassinations which look like the work of locals. Now we have morphed into a country which gets to make war on people who never attacked us, indeed in some cases because they pose "an existential threat to Israel," but the principle is far broader than that as our NDAA and USA Patriot Act demonstrate. In a way, we have become this country which claims it is under the same existential threat as Israel. Underlying it is a dangerous crusader mentality which is whipped to a frenzy in some quarters.
Assasination: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."
So, what part of this definition does Holder not understand. I suppose he could argue the 'often political part' during and election year but the word 'often' gives him wiggle room.
How do you feel about Senator McCain wanting to bomb Syria? Won't this be the same. Killing without a trial or due process?
Syria is an armed State that is freely kiling innocent citizens. I'm not sure how you can even compare the two... and McCain isn't suggesting that we go in and assassinate the military leaders, just that we cripple their ability to attack their citizens via coordinated airstrikes on military installations and vehicles.
March 6, 2012 at 9:51 am |
GREG: Aren't the terrorist in Afghanistan doing the same thing. Killing innocent civilians. Planning to disrupt and kill people for their cause.
Arlene: Yes, they are. But you're leaving out a few key aspects:
1. We don't just go into an Afghan town and kill someone without evidence that they are a terrorist.
2. When we do kill suspected terrorists, they're not American citizens. American citizenship guarantees you certain Constitutional protections, two of which are due process and a fair trial by jury.
Skeptical
This I agree with. What I don't like is when Holder and the Obama administration "accidentally" arm the cartel and they kill a border guard
sumday
I suppose if Hitler had been a US citizen you same people would be shouting that we should try to peacefully arrest him instead of shooting him on sight. In war rules change. After reading other peoples comments it seems that less people are against this rule as they are against who gets to decide when and how this is applied- and to that I can agree.
"In war rules change." When have we not been at war.
This is just the Latin American death squads run by Kissinger imposed on the Mideast.
In the case of Latin America, nuns and priests of American origin were killed, as were servants and their young children.
Kissinger is a popular figure in social circles in the US.
We've been a long time ripening and now the rot is showing and smelling worse than ever.
We're not at war. The "War on Terror" is a misnomer, as we can only declare war on a foreign state, not a terrorist group. And rules never change, whether you're at war or not. The United States is better than that, or so I thought.
negative. Military campaigns can be initiated against any declared and identified unifed power. IE the Taliban. After all, revoltionaries, the opposition in civil wars, etc all of these are not recognized sovereign states, but they are still belligerents in a war. As for the Taliban, if we can't recognize them as a formalized body for the purpose of military action, how could we recognize them as one for political negotiation, which we have and are doing?
Yes. If Hitler was an American citizen, he would have been entitled to due process and trial by jury. I agree.
gary allan
Any comments by the ACLU?
Quasit
Our government has the legal right to kill any of us at will, because it has the *power* to do so.
"The purpose of power is power."
And until the day comes that our officials fear us, rather than the other way around, they will continue to abuse and increase that power as much as they possibly can.
Would you consider the killing of Bonnie & Clyde or john Dillenger an assassination? These people were on the Most Wanted list and were wanted dead or alive. They killed innocent people in the commission of their crimes. Al Qada operatives are worse – their whole intent is to kill innocent people. These sick b@stards are in the same classification – wanted dead or alive for crimes against humanity.
dinak
If Bonnie and Clyde were found and they refused to obey commands to drop their weapons and allow themselves to be arrested and started shooting at the police instead, then of course the police would shoot to kill. But, if the police came upon Bonnie and Clyde, their goal was to arrest them and put them on trial. That is what we do in the U.S. Did you just move here?
The difference is that terrorist have in all senses of the word declared war on us. In war rules change. When I was in the army we trained for ambushes, and combat but never in my training was there a "hey identify yourself, and ask them to surrender before you fire." Now if the enemy gave up then no we couldn't shoot them, but when war is declared (which it has been) then you don't shout out to the enemy hey put your hands up, no you shoot at them first. In the case of police though they are not in a war and obey a different policy. Ask anyone who has been in combat how they treated the enemy- whether they tried to take them alive or if they tried to shot first. Bc this is a war without defined battle fields- many are treating this subject different than if there were clear battle fields lines. How would you people treat this situation in a battle field- then why do you treat it any different simply bc the battle fields are hidden in our own back yard?
That is a HORRIBLE example. The police DID come across Bonnie and Clyde with the intent of arresting them and the police officers that attempted to do so were KILLED. By your standards, the U.S. shouldn't kill ANY terrorist until they're caught in the act committing an attack.
In the case of the examples you mentioned there were warrants out for their arrest, meaning the judiciary was involved. Big difference.
Ahhh, the phrase, "Never leave hom without it." takes on a whole new meaning. 🙂
is it legal for cops to shoot at criminals who pose them or the public a threat? Then in the same concept we have every right to target you if you go overseas to commit crimes against us. If a cop is justified in shooting someone who is going to harm the public, then I feel we are justified by the same logic to take out American traitors overseas. No reasonable person can think that just bc they are a citizen of a country that they can retain those privileges should they go overseas with the purpose of attacking their own country.
The difference is that a police officer may only shoot when a suspect poses an immediate and imminent threat to the safety of the officer or the public. That was not the case here. Furthermore, he had already committed the acts, and should thus be permitted the due process of a court trial. If I murder someone, the police can't come to my house and shoot me. They have to arrest me and I get a trial.
WeDon'tMatter
Uh oh, you are correct but you are going to make the Westboro Baptist Church members in this thread angry with that one. Their paranoia has them believing that a drone is going to take out their house of hate here in the U.S. without a trial.
Cool. Then we can all go and protest at their funerals.
Gregg B
"is it legal for cops to shoot at criminals who pose them or the public a threat? Then in the same concept we have every right to target you if you go overseas to commit crimes against us." Pay attention. It's not necessary to go overseas for the government to accuse you o fbeing a terrorist or committing the acts of one. Because of this ruling no one really knows what the definition of terrorist is now and that the government has unlimited and unbridled authority. These are NOT ideals that our country was founded upon. Our founders revolted BECAUSE of laws and pronouncements made by people like Holder and Obama and Bush and Cheney, etc, etc.
This is completely different. Of course in the heat of the moment a policeman or military soldier must react to the immediate threat of danger and shoot in defense, etc... HOWEVER, this is not what Holder is proposing. Holder is proposing targeted killing (planned in advance) of U.S. citizens without proving guilt in even a military trial. That is the difference – and it is a big one.
Is Holder there to preside over the breakdown of our form of government into a Mafia hit squad? Is he there to justify the cheap degeneration of all that we hold dear? If the government can kill its citizens and call it due process of law without judicial restraint, then the balance of power has truly shifted into the hands of a dictator, and this will only get worse.
But the process of decay has been going on for at least a decade.
Only now, each of us is subject to the whims of our government, and they claim not to have to open up their process.
Due process means you can see what your government orders when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we need a revolution. This is a problem, because we have a very violent and ignorant populace, which has been trained by movies and tv to accept naked assertions of power by the executive. Even film-makers are embedded with the military to get the special effects and equipment. But their choice of authoritarianism is something which comes out of the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Truly. First, Holder and Obama were constantly making the case for bringing terrorists before our own, U.S. citizen-constitutionally protected civilian trial system instead of military trials. But, when it comes to actual U.S. citizen terrorists, they don't even get the benefit of a military trial or any trial whatsoever, but straight to a death sentence mandated by Obama? If this were the year 2008, and Bush were proposing we target U.S. citizens for execution, Obama and Holder would use that issue to win the White House and in the meantime, Bush would have been removed from office for doing what Obama is currently doing.
Good point, too bad that that didn't happen, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
It is happening! Under Obama – my God, are you even awake? This whole article we are responding to is about Holder wanting to execute people without benefit of a trial. He was against military trials for most cases and wanted civilian trials. Were you born this morning. Liberals wake up each day with no memory for what their own politicians and activists have siad or done; however, they remember (incorrectly) what a conservative has supposedly said or done for at least a century.
Actually I was talking about the financial mess, and lack of international respect and friendship.
You are absolutely right. This would be a winning campaign slogan for Obama if Bush's AG had asserted that due process of law did not require judicial process.
At the base of this is the assertion of executive power out of balance with the judiciary and the legislature. The legislature has enabled this with the NDAA and USA Patriot Act, but where is the judiciary, and where is the writ of habeas corpus? Where are the rules obeyed by the executive.
I voted for Obama, but I sent a message to whitehouse.org that I could not vote for him again if he did not send the NDAA back to the legislature for amendment or did not veto it. That website used to respond to citizens who wrote in praise or in protest. I did not get a response. It must have been overwhelmed by disagreement with the President's action or perhaps my disagreement was held in contempt.
After Holder's remarks, there is no question that he makes the case for his own impeachment because he is clearly acting in contempt of the US Constitution.
Polls are down, need to prove strength, election coming up, drones are fun to fly...let's go kill a few people overseas and show how tough I am. That's what a peace prize wins you when everything else around youy goes bad. All I know is it is obvious our president never painted a floor before or he left lint stuck in the paint as he walked his way out the door.
Henry Kissinger also won the Peace Prize. 'Nuff said about that worthless honor.
"Bottom rail top rail now."
Free Man
Justice Department's legal justification for using lethal force = Tea Party Members
Don't think for a moment that Holder doesn't have a list of those names.
UnlawfulHolder!
No, your mantra is not legal, Mr. Holder!
It is quite unconstitutional. Your words are treasonous and pit American against American. You are nothing more than a pathetic man who was caught for his crimes before the international community, suffering embarassment and responding to that embarrassment by attempting to harm other Americans in your spite.
But, I tell you on this day, your crimes will be laid bare before every person in this nation, as will your Commander-in-Chief's – so that all the world will see what you've done to harm your own people.
You are no different than one that nearly conquered the modern world and genocide against God's chosen.
And you are replicating many of his experiments because this younger generation of Americans is unaware of those atrocities.
But, mark my word, God will draw you down to your knees in repentence and judgment for pitting fellow countrymen against each other.
There is nothing more treasonous than that, Sir.
You are guilty as charged and your proclamation holds against your own life. Never forget that. Since you see fit to remove Constitutionally-guaranteed rights from each of us that hold citizenship in the United States of America, so it shall be for you, too.
Your words are your own demise.
You cut your path.
Travel on it.
Have to put him in line behind Bush, Chaney, Ashcroft etc.
Not sure why the past forces us to accept a current day leader placing us on this course today. You can line up all the little dots from here to Adam but that does not absolve Holder and Obama of their responsibility to us today- no matter what party, church, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability,state, country (and the list goes on) you belong to...they are it today and they are responsible and they sought that responsibility and must be answerable to us all TODAY for where they will take us tomorrow.
Strong words and true ones. I hope you understand that they also apply to the prior administration which kicked this off with the signing of the USA Patriot Act and their justification of torture.
'Whatever you do to the least of these My brethren, you do to Me." That should be written over the crumbling gates of Gitmo for all to see when it is closed (as Obama promised it would be).
You are wrong! When a person goes overseas to commit crimes against their own country they are a traitor by every definition of the word. When they make a country/society their enemy and target they are engaged in war. In war the punishment of a traitor is death. Thomas Jefferson even personally shot a man for treason on the white house front lawn- are you telling me he didn't understand the constitution? The constitution states all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. If you conspire with war criminals (anyone who targets a country or society is declaring war on them) then you have turned yourself into a traitor and all rights as a citizen are revoked. You cannot have a civilization were rights are granted to citizens without any responsibilities being associated to the citizenship. When you act against your entire country you have abandon your responsibilities and as such have given up all rights you were granted. This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Holder.
Nobody is saying that the hypothetical person who goes abroad to commit crimes against Americans is not a traitor.
But that mere assertion by authority does not make it so. Is everyone who is arrested guilty of the crime? If you are prosecuted by the court and the prosecution claims you are guilty, must the jury ignore any words in defense? Must their eyes glaze over until they can rubberstamp the officials? I hope not.
You can call someone a traitor, but unless you have proven it, you are guilty of murder when you kill him. It is the authorities who make themselves the guilty parties with extrajudicial murders, no matter the truth of their assertion.
THEY CANNOT MAKE THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW. In doing so, they commit their own crime.
"When the President does it, it is legal" was rejected in the Watergate proceedings.
Even "traitors" get a trial...our government is carrying out executions outside of our justice system...that's traitorous...
Thomas Jefferson did not serve as judge, jury, and executioner, just executioner. This type of power can not be invested in just a few people with zero transparency and oversight. You may agree with Obama & Holder's use decision in this case, but where does it go from here? When do we reach the point that it's used against someone on the far right or left because they are "dangerous" or "suspicious"?
Our government, and individuals in both parties, have proven that they will use nearly every inch of power they can get for personal gain. Do you really think they can be trusted with the ability to put a bullet in someone because they suspect they might be thinking bad thoughts?
I don't disagree with Holder/Obama, but I find it interesting that this President's Justice Dept has now decided that pre-emptive strikes against individuals who they judge to pose an imminent threat are legal. This is the same crowd that decried the last President's theory of pre-emption as it applied to Iraq. The hypocrisy never fails to surprise.
"Preemptive strike on Iraq" be real, Iraq posed no danger to the United States.
Exactly. And, think about who Obama and Holder may start to deem as "dangerous." Tea Party participants or organizers, perhaps?
Then it is there best interest not to go overseas and start killing Americans.
i doubt that Obama or anyone else will view the "tea party" supporters as threats to the country, just pathetically ignorant. There's no death penalty for ignorance; quite the opposite – Society glorifies the ignorant.
What you are saying then is that you are persuaded by Holder's arguments. Yet he only engaged in sloganeering. He did not make his case. He will have to make the case when he is brought to justice himself, and I doubt that he has a leg to stand on.
Find the reason why those americain are acting like terrorists and you will solve the problem.
The main thing also will be to create a new american foreign policy showing how to deal fairly with other countries in the whole world. The respect of human right and democracy for all people. We want democracy in Russia but we kill democracy in Democratic Republic of Congo and we let the killer Kabila (who was not elected and lost the presidential elections in November 2011 running the country). There is some thing wrong in that. That's the kind of justice for all we should have if we want to punish people and even to kill them. Don't put in our political actions the "two weight two measures's pricinciples"! Democracy for the West and not for other countries. If we keep doing that we will be wrong all the time and people will have a revenge's tendacy against the U.S.!
"The Constitution demands due process, not judicial process," is one of those phrases that will live in infamy.
The judicial system is loaded with those loaded phrases, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is another one, I would think if you are messing with someones life there should be no doubt.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard of proof, used in a judicial proceeding. There should be checks and balances to deal with the scintilla of evidence that could one day exonerate a person found guilty of a crime on one particular day by a jury of his peers. That's one reason why the death penalty is held in such low regard by thinking people everywhere, even after judicial process. Because people are not infallible and new evidence may come in, allowing a new trial.
Holder's catch phrase is not (yet) current in our legal system, but should it become the way the executive thinks, nobody is safe from the idea that the by asserting his rights, he is a threat to national security.
Well, Holder, being the criminal that he is, would say such a thing. This is the same man that brought you "fast and furious" and the same man that lets illegals get away with anything.
Sounds like all of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are posting here today, relax don't let your paranoia get the best of you. You can still commit your terrorist acts in this country, Holder is talking about a policy that only pertains to terrorists out side the United States.
Finally. The voice of reason.
Gwee, I hope there are no Russian 'terrorists' here in the states because Putin may just decide to follow our lead. Walk a wide awath around these potential take out targets. Foreign spies working for the good ole USA....watch out for that 'terrorist' label from the homeland- you may hear a buzz overhead here in the states becasue we CONDONE such behavior in other peoples countries. Why? I guess becasue we can- not because we are loved.
Wow, that makes us all feel so much better. thanks! What do you not get? Bush was warned by Clinton, Gore, and the entire congressional democrat body that Saddam Hussein was our greatest threat – look it up. Also, the vast majority fo so-called intelligence at the time pointed to WMDs. Since Bush had gotten so much criticism for supposedly ignoring one of thousands of memos on attacks with airplanes, he couldn't sit back and ignore Clinton's and the U.N. warnings on Iraq. Bush was damned if he did; damned if he didn't. Also, isn't this the same Holder who said Military trials were so passe' ? Why is it now he is in favor of no trials whatsoever? How can they prove someone "deserves" death without the process of some kind of trial – at least military? Shouldn't the person be tried for treason and then sentenced instead of Obama and Holder being judge, jury AND executioner?
OBAMA 2012, 2016,2020.................
That's what worried me about Bush. But nothing could have prepared me for the way he shape-shifted into the body of Obama. Quick, call the Exorcist.
Dodge Rat
Humm this is a no brainer!
traitor to our country.......
tratiors are put to death it's that simple.
Eutycus
To take up arms against one's own country is to commit Treason. And if I remember correctly, the punishment is death by hanging. You are correct, Dodge Rat.
Or decapitation if you are a nobleman. Then your head is placed on a pike for all to see.
Of course the determination of who is a traitor was made in something called a Star Chamber, invisible to the public eye. We had a Revolution and created a Constitution so that even a person charged with being a traitor got his day in court.
Just imagine – our black President and black AG upholding lynch law! It's shocking, but very banana republic.
Even a traitor has a right to a fair trial to determine his guilt.
BY TRIBUNAL RIGHT?
We have reset the standard at a very low rate. I read Holders words as granting any country/government having the right to go into any country and take out their own citizens without first providing proof the charges are accurate and/or the individual has indeed committed them. We just gave our country the ability to take us out on any creative charge they can manufacture that would lead one to believe we are terrorists. Words are powerful- not in what they do but in what they allow us to do. I want my children safe from all sources of harm without and within.
"We" have granted no such right to our country. The current Presidency has taken it. If you kill a suspect without a judicial process on the assertion that he was a threat, you have crossed over into illegal behavior under our Constitution, and you are now chargeable by "We the People" with high crimes and misdemeanors.
I say this while being a Democrat who voted for Obama, and while seeing nothing in the Republican field to indicate they would behave differently. There is one candidate who might not sink to despoiling the Constitution this way, Ron Paul, but as we know, he is treated as an object of curiosity because he does not live in such an obscene mindset as the others. If he were a couple of decades younger, he might have a chance. But as with Obama, and his immediate adoption of every tenet of the Bush administration as soon as he took office, you must always watch out for this odd change that happens to the President upon taking office and breathing the heady fumes of power. Perhaps an old frail man is the best choice after all.
Oakstave
Finally the government has decided its OK to kill these abortion protesters, as long as we think they are going to kill a doctor. I can't wait for the first missile to hit a church plotting 'terrorist acts'.
Hey, maybe we can shooting up drum circles if we suspect they are Eco-terrorists? How about groups planning protests? They might fight with police, endangering American lives.
Let's make sure we don't complain about this law. Let's keep the rules and definition of terrorism really vague, so the government can decide for us who is the enemy.
This rule does not apply to activity within the United States.
cool...so all american terrorists remain here where you're safe OR no american go overseas OR hey guys...open citizens here in America if you want to off those citizens of yours who are trying to now live in Good Old America...home of the free. This has got to be an attempt of a virtual SNL skit. 🙂
We can bomb churches in Canada then. Works for me.
Bruning von Stauffen
Not today...but what about tomorrow?
Ask the people killed by Timothy McVie if they think this is a good idea to kill an assassin ? Would it have been OK to kill the 9/11 Bombers before they got on those planes?
In a land of laws, we don't ga after people until the actually break a law. As far as assasins. If you kill a person who has not killed anyone then they are not an assasin and our country would be. This is like me believing you have the potential, and maybe even a plan, to kill someone so I kill you first and I claim to have saved those people. Were you an assasin? We will never know that and you will never be able to prove it one way or the other. Freedom is costly. We send our children to war to die for that freedom. The least we can do is endure some of the hardship to remain free here at home by being brave enough to only go after those who actually BREAK the law first.
I was going to respond to arlene, but then I realized that it would have been in vain.
I believe that in one of these extrajudicial killings, the definition of terrorism was "preaching jihad". Indeed it sets the stage for religious warfare even within the US, and I think there are willing mobs to carry it out in their new form of Kristallnacht.
saywhatyoumean
And the hammer continues to fall on basic human rights......this country is circling the drain.
Joe citizen abroad
Why was Al-Awlaki still considered a US citizen? Any US citizen can lose their citizenship by pledging allegiance to a hostile power. Why didn't the State Department invoke that rule?
To renounce your citizenship you need to formally do it either to the State Department or in an American embassy and surrender your passport. Just being a terrorist or associating with them doesn't strip you of your citizenship.
You really ought to examine what you say. There is a danger of believing that if someone coins the right catchphrase, you are satisfied they are following the law. What, for instance, is a "hostile" nation when the US has no permanent friends and looks to its own interests.
Sallyrv68
And these are the people who worried about waterboarding a couple of terrorists.
election year...man in trouble...not a good situation and nobody is safe until 2013.
I must of missed the part of our Constitution that allowed the government free reign to murder people.
And I missed the part that gave the United States judicial power in foreign countries to prosecute Americans killing other Americans in an act of war.
Would you rather them blow up the building you are working in first. Or kill your family while on vacation some where. I don't think they would give you a trial before killing you.
Oh, I see...we should act in the way of the terrorist and take them out first befoire they act as a terrorist and take us out first. Neat world and one we can all feel safe in as we are taken out before we can do anything. Wrong is wrong no matter what we fear.
Yes, I would rather take the extra 0.0001% chance with my life than have our government do this.
Tutuvabene
The government performing extrajudicial killings of it's citizens? We seem to be going down the slippery slope to a police state.
So just let em walk? That would be stupid and irrisponsible.
If the man is suspected of a crime, he should be tried for that crime. If not, he should be free until he commits a crime.
MASTRODAMUS
Wow JJ, you must be special.
JJ...you are a terrorist supporting our state to kill citizens without proof those citizens committed the acts charged with or allowing them to defend themselves in a court of law or on a field of war. You better run and hide...I hear a drone off in the distance coming closer.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Anyone in support of this 'government' is not an American Patriot. Again, the word 'democracy' is not in the Constitution of the United States even one time. Not one time. You can't believe it and you won't spend the time to look it up in case it is true. Because you are terrified that it is true and you'd have to admit you don't live in the world you think you do. Sorry, but it is very true.
Oh, I think we are big enough to protect ourselves from these guys. If we can kill them, it means we have found them. How hard is it to take them into custody when they cross some line? Before that happens, they can say whatever incendiary thing they want. Their henchmen are also subject to arrest.
But according to Holder, this is the worst time in human history. Yeah, right. In some dirtbag countries, terrorists are plotting against us. I guess he never heard of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. He thinks we are worse off now than we were in the cross-hairs of those sophisticated totalitarian powers, who were massively bent on our destruction.
"Give me liberty, or give me death." I think people are just now realizing what that means. If a citizen is denied due process, then our constitution is a joke.
holdersworld
Well, in Holders world you or I can simply be labelled a terrorist and get 'droned'. Naturally this will be said to not be true but for the sole American who was droned, what did he do or was he found guilty of doing that passes the litmus test of guilt and innocence until proven guilty. For everyone who will use the new jerk label of 'terrorist' as good enough reason, what prevents anyone from labeling any of us a terrosit with such scant findings before we are taken. This behavior is EXACTLY what our forefathers sought to protect us from. It is a dangerous administration that can label their enemies and take them out without any protections or public outcry.
dakota2000
Instead of terrorist, just think of it a s Cowboys and Indians. Al Awlaki went native and had to be put down.
I I believe this one is a justifiable killing. In this country, we should follow the existing law for a targeted killing of an American, unless that happened in the middle of a war zone or a shoot out with our law enforcement or military.
Sad that americans don't understand that ability of their government to kill their own citizens without a trial is no different than Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, current Syria, and every other oppressive regime and dictatorship in history. The funniest part is seeing people willingly chanting 'death to terrorists' while watching their government obtrusiveness and police power swell to levels never before imagined in america. The writers of the constitution must be rolling over in their graves in shame.
Oh gimme a break...what a lousy comparison. If these people are overseas and not able to be brought in for questioning and trial...then of course you do what you gotta do. If they are here in this country and plotting, then theirs more of a likelyhood that they'll be brought in. What would be totally stupid is to give them a free pass because they happened to have been born here and then decided to plot from some mountainous area in a tribal region of Pakistan. YOUR the one who doesn't get it.
The Judicial branch is the ONLY branch of the government that can determine the guilt or innocence of an individual. Period. Do you want congressmen decided next who should live and die? Maybe your major, or perhaps the policeman that decides he is suspicious because you just brought a brand new lexus and must therefore be a drug dealer so he decides to kill you in your bed at night. Perhaps you would like Newt Gingrich given carte blanche to kill anyone who he deemed "un-American"
I don't think they are talking about using drone attacks on U.S. soil, for one thing if a U.S. citizen who is declared a terrorist and is in the United States is able to be captured, unless they are in the act of committing a terrorist attack in which case they are already a target.
@Dexter
Excuse me sir, I believe you dropped your tin foil hat.
5 years ago only a couple people believed there was a housing bubble. No one listened. 2 years ago only a couple people believed european debt was unsustainable. No one listened. Now we are watching the erosion of the constitution and law in america. No one listens until it's too late. And people like you think that learning from world history is paranoia?? I pity your education system.
Rachell
This is such BS. Firsty, how can Holder assert that al-Alawki was a senior operational AlQaeda member? What evidence does he provide for this assertion? None. Futhermore, al-Alawki was not charged with a SINGLE crime. What about his 16 year old son who was murdered by drone attacks a week after his father's assassination? Was this kid Osama's new #2? People really should take government claims with a grain of salt until they start actually releasing evidence that supports their claim. All they have to do is label someone a terrorist....it doesn't matter if you are guilty or not, once that label is placed on outspoken, articulate americans that disagree with american foreign policy, get ready for a surprise from the sky.
> People really should take government claims with a grain of salt
I completely agree and the same should be said for comments posted on the internet by random people.
your must be a faux news watching tea bag rethuglican to question to current administration...OBAMA 2012, 2016,2018
rika33
Of couse its OK – the funny thing is that this is the same administration that says anyone who makes fun of someone at school is a bully, or counts an off color joke as sexual harassment. Be careful – it may be if you speak out against the administration – you may be a terrorist.
Well, that's the way it was during the last administration.
that makes it ok? (sigh)
welcome to REALITY folks.......its just that all are now privy to these forms of terrorism ......THE AFRICANS THAT WERE BROUGHT OVER on ships have been long suffering an still suffering to this day .........ur so called FOUNDERS WERE INVADERS AN NOW we cry about it .....lol
Get your facts on the history of the slave TRADE. The people that were brought to the U.S. from Africa were, in large part, the losers of whatever conflict or tribal war was going on at the time.
Dub70s
So your argument that war prisoners justifies slavery....Let me educate you on slavery. Most Africans that were brought to the US were not tribal POWs. More significantly were due to slave raids by Portuguese and Dutch backed tribes in the interior of Africa. The tribes that were typically captured were migrant tribes from east and north Africa trying to escape the influence of Islam.
Along the coast of Africa where existing African governments controlled mercantile shipping, the African rulers would not sell their own people into slavery regardless of debt or crimes.
Islam and Christian/European colonialism changed the definition of slavery on the continent of Africa and which benefited Americans.
Slavery is wrong no matter the terminology used. Pointing fingers is never the answere. Accountability and taking responsibility helps to bring about understanding and reconciliation. Yes, slave trading took place, but it is no different than sex trafficking is today. Both create a practically inescapable prison against a person's will.
Eric is correct. Nice rewrite of history there Dubs.
Leave a Reply to Sean