Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
Popular content
Today's Top News
AG Holder Defends Govt's "Chillingly Broad Claimed Authority to Conduct Targeted Killings"
US Set to Outline Justification for 'Targeted Assassination'
UPDATE: US Attorney General Eric Holder today defended the government's targeted assassination program as legal.
Holder said in a speech today:
Attorney General Eric Holder (photo: USDAgov)
"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack."
"In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."
TPM adds that Holder stated the targets were given "due process:"
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.”
Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, commented on the speech:
“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny. 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. 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.”
* * *
EARLIER: The Obama administration will later today explain its legal justification for its 'targeted assassination' program, which allows the government to kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, the Associated Press is reporting.
The Associated Press reports that Attorney General Eric Holder will explain the legal backing for the program this afternoon at Northwestern University.
CNN adds:
One official familiar with the speech said it was doubtful Holder would mention by name Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted in a September drone attack. Another American who was active in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Samir Khan, was not the target of the strike but was with al-Awlaki and killed at the same time. [...]
Another official familiar with the speech confirmed the attorney general will discuss the legal framework on the use of lethal force. The official, who asked not to be identified because the speech is still under wraps, said the targeted-killing issue is just one aspect of a broad-ranging look at national security issues from a legal perspective.
Defense department lawyer Jeh Johnson said last month:
"Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an assassination."
On February 1 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Depart of Justice to demand that the US government release information about the government’s targeted killing program.
Explaining its lawsuit, the ACLU wrote:
Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading. [...]
Some officials, including President Obama, have spoken on the record about the program. They have publicly claimed responsibility for killing al-Awlaki, and they have more generally defended the government’s right to kill citizens after a secret non-judicial process. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged on 60 Minutes that the U.S. can and does carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens subject to the recommendations of the CIA Director and the Secretary of Defense and pursuant to the President’s authorization. And this week, President Obama publicly defended the CIA targeted killing program in a live internet interview [starts at minute 26:30].
Glenn Greenwald wrote after the ACLU lawsuit was filed:
From a certain perspective, there’s really only one point worth making about all of this: if you think about it, it is warped beyond belief that the ACLU has to sue the U.S. Government in order to force it to disclose its claimed legal and factual bases for assassinating U.S. citizens without charges, trial or due process of any kind. It’s extraordinary enough that the Obama administration is secretly targeting citizens for execution-by-CIA; that they refuse even to account for what they are doing — even to the point of refusing to disclose their legal reasoning as to why they think the President possesses this power — is just mind-boggling. Truly: what more tyrannical power is there than for a government to target its own citizens for death — in total secrecy and with no checks — and then insist on the right to do so without even having to explain its legal and factual rationale for what it is doing? Could you even imagine what the U.S. Government and its media supporters would be saying about any other non-client-state country that asserted and exercised this power?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



80 Comments so far
Show AllToday Joseph Stalin happily agreed with Eric Holder and the Obama Administration's views on due process and the killing of citizens.
"I had a lot of terrorists to deal with in my day. We were surrounded by capitalist enemies who wanted to cut our throats!"
"At the time we called them saboteurs and agents of Western Capitalism, but it's the same thing. We always took a look at their file before we had them shot. Sometimes I was too busy so Lavrentiy or some other comrade did the legal work instead."
"If we thought they might turn out to be shirkers, malcontents, trouble makers, or saboteurs down the road, we had them shot. Homeland security is serious business -- not for sissies -- but we always gave them due process."
"My only regret is that we didn't have this fancy American drone technology in my time. Boy, this could have really cut the work load down! I had to have that rabid dog Trotsky done in with an ice pick -- how crude is that when you can just blow them away in their sleep!"
Stalin chuckled at the thought of blowing enemies of the people away with targeted killings.
"Man, I miss the good old days. However, nice to see Amerika has come around to my way of getting the job done."
for starters...
immoral, psychopaths, indifferent, murderers, fascists, despots, authoritarians, anti-libertarians, hypocrites, tyrants.
...peace...
OK, now here's what up now with that whole bullshit Magna Carta thing...
...peace...
Greenwald's pithy passage leaves little unsaid. The US claims the prerogative of summary execution, anywhere, any time, no explanation, no excuse. There are no legal defenses of lawlessness.
The real justification:
To focus on the rights of citizens instead of the the fact that the Bill of Rights specifically says "People" or "Persons" is to limit the argument against these corrupt actions in a way which was specifically avoided in the creation of the Bill of Rights.
"Citizens" were mentioned in the Constitution in regard to the way the government was to be structured, but the Bill of Rights which followed those first Articles does not limit the rights to citizen. This was NOT an accident.
So, now we have a "government" which is controlled by Corporations (which are not even mentioned) and which does not even apply those basic supposed beliefs and guidelines to people, even if they are citizens.
The Constitution no longer applies to the United States of Global Corporate Domination.
The deal is done. We are only allowed our Delusions of Grandeur within the state religion of so-called Free Market Capitalism and, even that delusion, is applicable, ONLY as long as you are complicit.
Anyone who still thinks Obomber, or anyone else in that goddamned town, is on your side, cares about America, has a moral fiber left in them...dreamers.
Stick a fork in it kids, the goose is cooked...or should I say Koched? The money people now rule completely and violently. They can GFT. Can it get worse? Oh hell ya...and it will. The lines have been drawn aka NDAA, now this. The Constitution IS BEING DESTROYED. All international law has been destroyed. How the frack do people wake up in a scenario like this? They don't, they sit back and wait.
Obomber is a disgrace to his black heritage, a disgrace to his professed church, and a disgrace to the memory of his grandmother and mother.
It was destroyed when one member of the "Supreme" Court disenfranchised every voter in the United States by canceling a recount of an obviously corrupt election and appointing Bush president by a 5-4 vote.
It was destroyed when the illegal, unconstitutional, misnamed Patriot Act was voted in by all but one member of the legislature.
It was destroyed when Bush said the Constitution is "just a goddamned scrap of paper."
It was destroyed with illegal renditions and torture, with the ending of habeas corpus, with the termination of posse comitatus.
I could list for my full thousand words and still not run out of reasons, but hopefully, you get the idea.
If an individual here in America went into a jury trial and claimed self-defense from shooting an unaware person in the back of the head, the judge wouldn't instruct the jury on self defense and wouldn't allow the lawyer to argue it. Obama and Holder live in their own separate realities. But Holder will bust medical marijuana clinics, to save the soul of the nation.
"Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an assassination."
------------------
Translation:
The president is now a King. He makes the laws of war to suit his whims on a daily basis. If for any reason, disclosed or secret, he says an American must die then that person is guilty, loses his due process, and must perish from the Earth. Anyone who voices opposition to the King's decrees may also be declared an enemy of the Empire and placed on the list for legal termination. The new laws of war will continue until it's announced that the war has ended. The end of the war will not be announced. No further challenges to the King's authority will receive a response.
King George (against whom which the 13 colonies rebelled) did not have such power.The Magna carta was signed in response to King John some 500 years earlier and even PRIOR to it being siigned King John did not have the authority to order peoples assassinated.
Indeed much of what was in the Magna Carta was an affirmation of already existing rights of citizens.
Most Kings and Emperors in history had to follow laws the President of the USA claims do not apply to him and those that did not were recognized as despots and more often then not toppled. Indeed the manner by which these despots were removed from power was by assassination.
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
By order of the Captain and his Master-at-Arms.
Nothing like keeping the words and twisting them into totally different definitions. He ought to be hung in the public square with the rope twisting and twisting just match those words. Unlikely in real life though. These creeps seem to live forever and get honored for statescraft and so forth.
Don Corleone would be so envious.
here's a great idea i picked up from a recent jeopardy show. one contestant took matters into his own hands. he taught and sponsored a creative writing class. that's one wonderful way to encourage and nurture critical thinking skills!
AUMF = Public Law 107-40. The goal of this insane law is 'preventing future terrorism' by military means.
. Under the "Continuity of Government" (COG) plan, which Rumsfield and Cheney had been working to develop since the 80s, the Constitution is superceded and a "shadow government" rules under the "state of emergency."
Now, all this "national security" business requires so much secrecy that no one to date has been able to confirm that we ARE, in fact, already living under COG. Even members of the Homeland Security committee in Congress have not received a straight answer to that question.
But it seems, judging by the behavior of our "leaders," that the Constitution has indeed been superceded, due to the fact that they not only found it necessary to declare a "State of Emergency" on 9/11, but every year since, and to the fact that their ACTIONS show a continual pattern of disregard for the Constitution.
Indeed, on 9/11, Richard Clark, the White House’s “Counterterrorism Tsar,” activated the Continuity of Government Plan, implementing executive directives on Continuity of Government dating back to the Reagan administration. At 9:45 a.m., every federal agency was ordered to activate an alternative command post, an alternative headquarters outside of Washington, DC, and to staff it as soon as possible.
Officials subsequently rotated in and out of the shadow government on a 90-day cycle. While the measure was initially intended only as a temporary precaution, the White House decided to make it a permanent feature of “the new reality.” When the existence of the shadow government was later revealed, some controversy arose because it included no Democrats. In fact, top congressional Democrats remained unaware of it until journalists broke the story months later.
Sources:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101shadowgov#a091101s...
See also Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, and articles by him online.
...peace...
Kinda hard to defend something as blatantly fascistic and authoritarian and criminal as this, isn't it, you slimy little Dem/Obama lovers? I don't blame you for laying low on this one.
excellent point. last night i visited huffpo to look for a sampling of the comments in regards to obama's dismal speech at aipac. there were over 21,000 responses (comments) to the article about limbaugh using the word slut. WTF ? we're on the edge of war, the ndaa is kicking in right about now, our economy is still tanking, the environment is in shambles and our government is being manipulated by crazies from another country (israel) but the faithful obama supporters are talking about fucking rush limbaugh ....
...peace...
So now the state doesn't have to bother with cumbersome trials. If they want some American trouble maker out of the way, they can send out an assassin to get the job done, all in a day's work. Saves the state some money and, by golly, in these hard times that matters!
The empire has a dark agenda up its sleeves. Does anyone think things will get better before getting horribly worse?