March 6th, 2012
(HigginsBlog) – Attorney General Eric Holder defends targeted killings of U.S. citizens saying its perfectly legal as long as ambiguous conditions are met.
In a round of Orwellian doublespeak, the US Attorney General Eric Holder has come up to defend publicly for the first time, the governments program of extra-judicial assassinations of US citizens which are conduction based merely on allegations with no evidence to support the claims.
Holder lashed out against those who call the assassinations for what they are assassination, saying the government is totally justified in killing US citizens when the are suspected of planning to kill US citizens.
Let’s review the statements he makes to according to CNN, which would surely make Hitler proud if he were still alive today.
Attorney General Eric Holder Monday strongly defended the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad when they are suspected of planning to kill Americans, and he rejected the claims of critics who call them “assassinations”.
Yes, there is a big problem with those statements Mr. Holder. No one should be punished for being suspected of anything with out a fair and impartial convicted by judge. Hell, the USS NAZI regime suspects everyone as being a terrorist, as evidenced by repeated think tank reports and even FBI literature that outlines a whole long line of innocent activities that people perform on a daily basis qualifies as the “suspected terrorist activity” that should be reported.
Next get out your damn dictionary and look up the definition of assassination: to murder or kill someone by a premeditated sudden or secret attack, often a politically prominent person or for religious reasons. Now, is the “targeted killing” program done in secret or a premeditated manner? Yes, for both. The definition fits the bill, so sorry Mr. Holder they are assassinations.
Are the targets politically prominent? They certainly are and if they weren’t the US government would never have known about them to put them on the secret kill list in the first place. Is it done for religious reasons? You can argue the merits of that, but a lot of US conservatives will say it is and even more importantly those being assassinated sure in the hell feel like it is.
While not referring directly to the government’s drone attack on U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year, the Attorney General was unflinching in providing publicly for the first time the Justice Department’s legal justification for using lethal force.
“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” Holder said.
There you go CNN, let’s pretend like Anwar is the only US citizen that the has been assassination. Let’s not forget the editor of a magazine was also a victim of one of these targeted killings as was Awlaki’s 16 year son, also a US citizen, who was targeted in an entirely separate attack.
Sorry Holder, there is no evidence Awalki ever did anything besides give speeches against the attrocities that the US government commits against Muslims. No evidence that he was a member of al-Qaeda, none the less a “senior operational leader”, or that he “actively engaged in planning to kill Americans”. The only evidence is the SPECULATION of intelligence officers that was leaked to CIA partnered newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times.
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 had written a still-secret opinion declaring such lethal attacks are legal and justifiable.
Yes, the same “secret opinion” on the “secret program” that the government continues to stonewall the ACLU on saying they can not confirm nor deny the program exists. Ironically, the have no problem discussing with the New York Times, The Washington Post, and of course, you CNN, as well as giving a speech about it at Northwestern University Law School.
Okay, now here comes the double speak that would have made Hitler proud.
Holder stressed three conditions must exist. First, the U.S. government must have determined that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against America. Second, capture of the suspect is not feasible, and third, the operation would be conducted within the principles of the law of war.
But Holder argued that because of al Qaeda’s ability to spring surprise attacks and is considered to be continuously planning against to attack on America, the law allows for striking even before the “precise time, place, and manner of an attack becomes clear.”
What the fuck did I just read? The first condition is “the government must have determined the individual poses an “imminent threat of a violent attack against America” but due to the nature of Al-Qaeda’s ability to surprise attack and IS CONSIDERED to be continuously planning…. the law allows for assassinating such individuals before the before the “precise time, place, and manner of an attack becomes clear.”
So to translate that… if the government “CONSIDERS” or “ALLEGES”, the government can assassinate a US citizens anytime they wish, even if they have absolutely no evidence. Furthermore, if you are a member of, or somehow have relations to an organization that government spooks have a hunch are “continuously planning attacks” they can assassinate you.
“Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed,” Holder said.
So the logic is, if you suspect there high risk that Americans would be killed, you will first kill Americans to prevent them from killing… Americans? Using that logic, you may as will just kill all Americans to make sure, once and for all they don’t kill any more Americans.
Holder, I suspect that you are going to kill Americans, I mean you are sitting here admitting you are going to kill Americans and that you are continuously planning to kill Americans to prevent them from killing Americans. May you should need to call in a drone to prevent yourself from killing more Americans.
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 assassinations at all.
“Some have called such operations ‘assassinations’. They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassination are unlawful killings,” Holder said, contrasting that with lawful killings in government operations under the conditions he outlined.
Well we already went over the definition of assassination and your “secret targeted killings” sure in the hell qualify as assassinations. I am glad that you do admit that Assassination are unlawful killings and as I already pointed out the conditions you outline aren’t conditions at all, and even if they were it wouldn’t change the fact that you are conducting assassinations.
Here is a hypothetical for you Mr. Holder, If someone were to rig my son’s remote-controlled helicopter up to drop a pipe bomb on the President to prevent his continual planning to kill American citizens would that a lawful targeted killing? Surely, that person would be convicted of assassinating the president so you can have as many corrupt judges agree with you all you want but the court of public opinion convicts you of conducting assassinations.
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 declared. “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.”
Great, anadmission that the assassination program is conducting “extra-judicial killings” because up until this point the White House has asserted that the assassinations were conducted only after a secret judicial review.
Now, I am not an expert on constitutional law, and we all know damn well that most of our rights have been ripped out of the damned constitution, but I am pretty damn sure that constitution does guarantee a Judicial Process in several amendments. Call it due process all you want, and argue this is a time of war or public danger all you want, but there is a reason that the founding fathers made so judges – not legislators or slimy White House lawyers maker their own “secret interpretation” of things – define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty which are INALEINABLE RIGHTS owed to all.
Al Awlaki and another American, Samir Khan were killed last September when a drone operated jointly by the C.I.A. and a military Joint Operations unit destroyed a vehicle in which the men were riding in Yemen. Awlaki, who U.S. intelligence officials have said was an operational planner for attacks, was the target of that strike. Khan was traveling with Awlaki and killed, though he was not specifically targeted.
It is nice that CNN finally mentions that Khan was killed. Why don’t you add that Khan was a journalist and that the US carried out another drone strike 2 weeks later that killed Awlaki’s 16 year son, a US citizen born in Colorada. Yes, most Americans don’t know that the US is assassinating children and you wouldn’t want to let the cat out of the bad now would you.
Court documents show that the so-called “Underwear Bomber” Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, told U.S. authorities al-Awlaki had played a major role in the plot to blow up a commercial airline flight near Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. President Obama later said al-Awlaki had “directed the failed attempt”.
This is supposed to be evidence, a man who was undoubtedly beaten and tortured and would say anything under distress. This is inadmissible hearsay, where is the evidence? Why does CNN use such hearsay as supporting evidence? Surely that is not is not objective and impartial reporting.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unsuccesful lawsuit challenging the administration’s drone program on behalf of the Awlaki’s father, said the speech was “a gesture towards additioanl 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. 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,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of ACLU’s National Security Project, in an emailed statement.
Nice how CNN references an old ACLU lawsuit while not even mention that in that case Alwaki was even denied the right to get a lawyer and try to defend against the allegations. You see, no one is allowed to do business with alleged terrorists, not even lawyers. CNN further fails to mention the ACLU’s current lawsuit against the government, in which they fail to even acknowledge that the assassination program exists. And as I pointed out before, the White House had previously asserted the assassinations were conducted after a secret judicial review.
Holder also used the speech to defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists, noting numerous succesful 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.”
So is the assassination of US citizens without judicial oversight.
Monday Holder indicated it was possible there would be more targeted killings.
“When such (U.S). 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.”
Holder then concluded, “This is an indicator of our times, not a departure from our laws and values”.
Yes please do handle then in accordance with the Constitution and not some secret shadow government processes created in the evil mind of Dick Cheney and the likes. Yes, this is an indicator of our times and the statement that this is not a departure from our laws and values is mere rhetoric as on can successfully argue that there are no laws or moral values among this nation’s elite. There is a two-tiered judicial system that operates as an over-bearing police state for the masses and an all out system of lawlessness amount the elite.
Source: Higgins Blog