Obama assassinates 2 Americans and nobody cares

[Malsua]

Won't it be nice when we no longer have a golfer in chief? It seems like the two things he's good at are golf and finding new ways to void the constitution.

[American Patriot]

I think he should go golfing more, stay away from DC.

Man I started a huge fight privately the other day. Someone was sending me notes telling me I shouldn't be saying bad things about Obama on Facebook.

LMAO

[vector7]

Companion Post and Threads:

• Do Not Be Deceived: S. 1867 is the Most Dangerous Bill Since the PATRIOT Act
• Obama Authorizes Assassination of Civilians He now calls Terrorists
• Obama’s Growing Snitch Program on Extremism
• Obama Administration Targets Pro-life Activists as Terrorists
• 2nd DHS Domestic Extremism report, guess who they define as a terrorist now?
• Eric Holders new Terror Warning: "We are now focused on Americans taking up arms"
• Enemy Belligerent Interrogation & Detention, a Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• The Oath Keepers
• FEMA Training to Stop People Like YOU
• We Need 'Analysis of How Christian Militants … Might Bring Down The Country’
• Christians are more militant than Muslims, says Government's equalities boss
• Obama wishes America was run like China

Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’

Ryan J. Reilly March 5, 2012, 4:40 PM 8744 932

The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.

Such a use of lethal force against that type of individual, Holder said, wouldn’t violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statues because such an act would be in “self defense.” In remarks delivered at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Holder also said that targeted killings are not “assassinations,” adding that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” because assassinations are “unlawful killings” while targeted strikes are conducted lawfully.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has so far refused to release a copy of a legal memorandum justifying the targeted killing of the U.S. born Anwar al-Awlaki, who allegedly inspired several attacks or attempted attacks on the U.S.

While not mentioning Anwar al-Awlaki by name — Holder said he “cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation” — he arguably referenced his killing by using the example of a U.S. born al Qaeda leader.

Holder said that “citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.”

Holder also argued that the due process clause of the Constitution did not mean that federal judges had to review decisions to kill individuals the U.S. government claimed were terrorists.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances,” Holder said.

“In cases arising under the Due Process Clause - including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda - the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process,” Holder said. “Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.”

Holder said that any decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen is “among the gravest that government leaders can face” and that the American people deserve to be assured that actions taking place on their behalf are consistent with values and laws.”

Holder said that the “imminent threat” evaluation had to take into account what would happen if the U.S. missed its window of opportunity and said the Constitution did not require the President to “delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning.”

The question of whether the capture of a terrorist is feasible is “a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question,” said Holder, adding that the “nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide” meant capture wasn’t always possible.

Holder also said that the administration informs members of Congress about counterterrorism activities and the legal framework for targeting individuals for killing, which he said was part of a system of “robust oversight”
“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential - but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war - even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen,” Holder said.

Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said ahead ahead of Holder’s speech that the question was whether Holder would offer “meaningful transparency both about the legal standards that the Obama administration uses to determine who can be killed as well as basic facts about who can be targeted.”

Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First called the question of whether al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen “sort of a red herring.”

“You cannot arbitrarily kill individuals that you decided secretly are your enemies, even if they are U.S. citizens,” Eviatar said. “It’s not as if due process only applies to U.S. citizens. The bigger question is what made al-Alwaki targetable, was he an operational leader of al-Qaeda with whom were were at war?”

[vector7]

Holder Promises To Kill Citizens With Care

Published 1, March 6, 2012 Congress , Constitutional Law , Courts , Criminal law , International , Military , Politics , Uncategorized 81 Comments



Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University Law School yesterday explaining President Barack Obama’s claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport.

Holder proclaimed that “The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.” The use of the word “abroad” is interesting since senior Administration officials have asserted that the President may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including the United States. Holder’s speech does not materially limit that claimed authority. He merely assures citizens that Obama will only kill those of us he finds abroad and a significant threat. Notably, Holder added “Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.”

The Obama Administration continues to stonewall efforts to get it to acknowledge the existence of a memo authorizing the killing of Awlaki.

Democrats previously demanded the “torture memos” of the Bush Administration that revealed both poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.

Holder became particularly cryptic in his assurance of caution in the use of this power, insisting that they will kill citizens only with “the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.” What on earth does that mean?

He was more clear in establishing that due process itself is now defined differently than it has been defined by courts since the start of this Republic. He declared that “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” Of course, from any objective standpoint, that statement is absurd and Orwellian. It is basically saying that “we will give the process that we consider due to a target.”

This is precisely why the Framers rejected the “trust me” approach to government, as discussed in this column.