This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Did the Department of Justice Really Say that the Government Would Not Assassinate Americans?

George Washington's picture




 

After a 13-hour filibuster by Senator Paul asking for a yes-or-no answer, on the question of whether the government could kill Americans on U.S. soil with drones, the Attorney General responded:

Dear Senator Paul:

 

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric Holder

But – as anyone who has worked in the legal or legislative field knows – statements which do not pin down all possibilities create loopholes large enough to drive trucks through.

Remember, Holder’s letter to Paul can’t be taken in a vacuum. The government has said for many months that it has the power to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.

William Grigg notes:

This brief message from Holder … should be read in terms of the supposed authority claimed thereby. This means removing useless qualifiers in the interest of clarity.

 

What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad. “Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact [update: children too]. This is a murderous application of the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” and it will be used when — not if — Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

 

Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants.

But the determination of who is a “combatant” is made in secret and without judicial review.  For example, AP notes:

Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson … said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Secretive, unaccountable agencies are making life and death decisions which effect our most basic rights. They provide “secret evidence” to courts which cannot be checked … and often withhold any such “evidence” even from the judges. For example:

“I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22,” the judge wrote. “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people.

Secretive, unaccountable agencies are making life and death decisions which effect our most basic rights. They provide “secret evidence” to courts which cannot be checked … and often withhold any such “evidence” even from the judges. For example:

“I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22,” the judge wrote. “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions [i.e. assassinations] that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

Moreover:

The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:

  • If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
  • But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security

See how that works?

The government also wants to expand its assassination program to cover “associates of associates” of Al Qaeda.

And – given that political dissent is now considered terrorism, and protesters considered low-level terrorists – does that mean that dissent or protest makes one a “combatant”?.

Karl Denninger also points out that Holder didn’t say anything about other types of assassination:

Still can’t be bothered to make a clear statement can you?

So in your opinion, Mr. Holder, it’s perfectly ok if the President uses an M-16, a 9mm, a bomb constructed out of C-4 or burns the building you’re in to the ground?

Therefore, Holder’s letter raises more questions than it answers.

Update:  One of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Professor Jonathan Turley – just weighed in on this issue:

We previously discussed how Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter confirming that the President would have authority to kill citizens on U.S. soil without a charge or conviction. His answer triggered a principled filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul and another embarrassment to Democratic Senators who, again, chose personality over principle in staying silent. Now, Holder has issued a new statement. No, President Obama still claims the right to kill U.S. citizens on his sole authority. However, Holder now says that, if the citizen is “not engaged in combat on American soil,” the President cannot vaporize him. The answer leaves the constitutional claim of Obama even more confused and conflicted. Does this mean we have a third category now under the policy: citizen, citizen terrorist, and citizen non-combatant terrorist?

 

In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

 

Last week, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

 

***

 

It is not clear … why Holder did not answer the question previously.

 

***

 

It is not clear what Holder means by “engaged in combat” since the Administration memo shows that the Administration is using an absurdly broad definition of “imminent” threat under the kill list policy. Since the Administration has continued to assert that terrorists are engaged in a war against the U.S., the terse reply of Holder seems designed to preserve later flexibility.

 

Moreover, there is nothing in the constitutional claim of the Administration that reflects such a limitation. Deciding on where to kill a citizen would be an discretionary policy under the sweeping presidential authority described by the Administration. As noted in earlier columns (here and here and here), it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, Obama is saying that his appointment of a non-binding committee satisfied due process and relieves any need for judicial review. Moreover, if the President has the inherent authority to kill a citizen in Canada, it is not clear why such inherent authority would not exist a few hundred yards away in Detroit. The Administration has said that it can use the unilateral power when it considers a capture to pose undue risk to its personnel.

 

What is particularly striking is that we have a president who is asserting the right to kill any citizen but the Administration has classified memos on that authority and the Attorney General will only give a Senator a terse two line conclusory statement on scope. The Administration appears to believe that there is little need to explain the details on killing citizens, such as how it defines “combat.” Obviously, if there is a war occurring in the United States, a president has the right to put down insurrection or attacks on the federal government. These strikes concern targeting terrorists. One can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of combat.

 

It would seem an obvious thing to explain how they define combat and whether an alleged terrorist would fall into it. Does this mean that there will be a category of non-combatant terrorists for domestic strikes? How is that defined? It seems like a hole big enough to fly a drone through.Since police can already use lethal force to stop an attack in progress, the answer leaves more questions than it answers in my view. For a citizen it would mean that he or she can be killed abroad on the basis of the Administration’s wildly broad definition of “imminent” but domestically would fall under a different “combat” definition. Where is the line between an “imminent” threat and “combat” drawn? Does Holder mean there is a different meaning to imminence when someone steps over the border? We already have the definition of “imminent” and the Administration’s new definition of “imminent.” Is this yet a third option?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 03/09/2013 - 07:43 | 3314500 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Its always been this way, any state that does not have a monopoly on violence within its borders is not a state, its somalia.

What you say is still true, just saying it has always been this way.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:46 | 3314416 HalinCA
HalinCA's picture

BINGO.  +100

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:26 | 3314135 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

By the way, once it had become obvious that Sandy Hook had been hopelessly fucked up, they quickly tried to rush a hush-hush bill through congress that would grant the FBI immediate command over a crime scene in the case of "mass killings."

That was kiboshed by an anonymous Senator who used some procedural rule to stop it.

http://www.infowars.com/anonymous-senator-uses-secret-hold-blocks-fbis-i...

They want to be able to stop the hasty video evidence that tends to pop up.

I can't wait to see the next phoney bullshit.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 00:58 | 3314274 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

FBI would have no jurisdiction unless they are invited by the local authorities. Any laws passed by the feds would hold no water.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 01:14 | 3314292 sitenine
sitenine's picture

"Any laws passed by the feds would hold no water."

That is a disturbing statement.

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:55 | 3314422 HalinCA
HalinCA's picture

Sweetbaby Jesus.

Any fucking law passed by the Feds will scare the crap outta the state politicians who desparately need Federal money to keep the proles anaesthetized.  Medicade, anyone?  ObamaCare, anyone?  How 'bout those juicy Federal grants to all the local police forces and school districts?  As long as income tax directly goes to the IRS, instead of going to the state tax board, state politician will wet themselves to be first in line to BOHICA themselves to the Fedral government. 

State sovereignty ended with the direct election of Senators in 191x.

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:51 | 3314720 DOT
DOT's picture

Among the younger cops around my neck of the woods, they are the Feds, the State, and the County, and the City, and the Township[, and the university, and the guardians of the MF'ing Planet.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:17 | 3314116 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

One little ray of optimism: they really are afraid of armed Americans. That's why they are going to such lengths to destory the 2nd Amendment. Consider fast and Furious, an obvious (and badly botched) attempt to impugn the 2nd Amendment. Also, the next hollywood operation: Sandy Hook (i.e. they put the fucking clue in the Batman movie. Just like they put 9/11/2001 on Neo's passport in The Matrix. They just can't help themselves.)

Check this out: the DHS actors are literally walking in circles around the firehouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrXPHwl11io

If they weren't worried about our arms they wouldn't go to such lengths.

Every one of the points of the Bill of Rights which is possible to negate with a pen, they have done. The second amendment is standing in the way.

I like knowing it's a problem for them.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 07:51 | 3314510 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Sure its shits and giggle till obama invokes the patriot act against some backwoods militia/gun club then uses the public reaction to the problem to impose a govt solution to a problem they created in the first place.

bingo, radical gun owners become anti american, unpatriotic and armed.

Every gun owner that fights back will be used as an example of how dangerous these 'domestic' terrorists really are.

Create a problem.

Manage the public reaction.

Impose pre-planned solution.

And the best of it is that they all think they are patriots who are doing it to save america.

On a happier note all is not lost is south central LA.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central...

NSFW

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:03 | 3314660 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

They've been hard at work setting the False Narrative already.

SPLC Letter to Holder and Napolitano: Patriot “Hate” Groups Pose Domestic Terror Threat

The Southern Poverty Law Center sent a letter earlier this week to Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging the government to establish a task force to investigate the supposed domestic terror threat posed by the likes of Alex Jones, We Are Change, Oath Keepers, the Constitution Party, the Tyranny Response Team and thousands of other Americans outside of the orbit of the establishment.

http://www.infowars.com/splc-letter-to-holder-and-napolitano-patriot-hate-groups-pose-domestic-terror-threat/

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:56 | 3314424 HalinCA
HalinCA's picture

2700 MRAPs, on their way to a neighborhood near you.

Checkmate.

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 05:10 | 3314429 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

80 million armed Americans, double fucking checkmate.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 05:20 | 3314431 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

Plus, out of those 80 million, some 50% give a shit and know what the Constitution means - TRIPLE FUCKING CHECKMATE.

You will never win against a True Believer - all the wars that were lost, were lost to people that truly believed in their cause - they willl fight to the death - Vietnam, Afghanistan (every stinking time), on and on.

If it comes to this, it will be one bloody war but THEY will lose. Try as they will to dry up to ammo market, WE have our own ammo market greater than theirs, And eventually, we'll take theirs.

Semper Peratus brothers.

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 07:52 | 3314511 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Unfortunately in america there are more beliebers than believers.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:12 | 3314400 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Yeah, they are very scared.

Signed: an American.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:28 | 3314033 El Hosel
El Hosel's picture

Why would they use a drone, makes way to much noise?  They can take somebody out without all the fanfair, doing it with a drone would be making a statement, "in your face sheepeople".... if that is the case they are declaring war on the people, loud and clear right now.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 00:11 | 3314208 Westcoastliberal
Westcoastliberal's picture

One word sums it up: TERROR.

Imagine the primal fear of the great bird that can destroy you and your family.

With the guys really pulling the strings, it's important to control with fear.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 01:43 | 3314322 Bingfa
Bingfa's picture

The war against terror is really a war against our own Government.

Homicidal maniacs.....I'm not living one more day in fear of my own Government

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 00:50 | 3314247 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

That's a lot of Red Pill  there. But I'll take it over the alternative.

Blue Pills are for pussies.

Truth is the antidote for fear:

Awakening the soulful, the caring and the free.  Cowering the thoughtless, the expedient, the selfish and the slaves.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:28 | 3314032 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

thanks

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:21 | 3314022 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

We have no rights.  The US Federal Government will drone and intern people for expediency under the cover of "security" or whatever reason it decides to give as it has already provided itself "legal" cover to do just that.

And killing its own citizens may be a stretch for so many to consider, but consider too the leadership of this nation saw fit to deploy WMD of the highest order on the non-combatants of another country.  Not since has any other administration in the world pulled that particular trigger.  Thank Goodness and never again, I hope.

On the topic of life (Freedom) and whether its precious, we know the power structure of the US is apathetic beyond nightmarish proportion.  

 

Carlin was right.  They don't care. 

 

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:58 | 3314425 HalinCA
HalinCA's picture

+ 100

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:14 | 3314004 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret...”

This new Executive Privilege has only been enabled by the lies, deceit and criminality gushing from the treasonous hijacking of the Republic by the false flag attack known as 9/11.

Perhaps the judge should take his due diligence to ground and not accept any arguments, reasonings or pretzel logic until a true, complete and objective analysis of events on that day has been examined and vetted by a jury of experts.

Until then, no motions should be granted and no judgments rendered due to insufficient evidence.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 00:24 | 3314222 Westcoastliberal
Westcoastliberal's picture

Let me condense this: "If on its face the laws seem incompatible with our Constitution & laws" then the fucking judge has no recourse than to throw the case out and sanction the lawyers that brought it to the court. 

This is some serious shit and it's gone on too long.  Someone has to start standing up to these guys.  And that also goes with the TBTF banksters.  The syndicate has taken over, it's obvious.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:23 | 3314687 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

That's why I've coined the term as describing them as:

The Global Criminal Cabal Crime Syndicate.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 21:49 | 3313965 brokesville
brokesville's picture

Eric (Waco) Holder, Janet Renos (boy)

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 21:49 | 3313964 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Funny White Suits are Black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 21:21 | 3313917 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

"Now that drone attack you heard about last week, I just want you to know that I did not have anything to do with that. I would like to express my sympathy to the families of those American citizens that lost their lives, and I have it under good authority that the missiles involved were built by the Bush Adminstration and must have malfunctioned."

B.O. - June 28, 2014

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 21:17 | 3313909 MaxThrust
MaxThrust's picture

I guess we can add a new word the the English lexicon.

 He was droned. (Definition: assassinated by UAV )

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:16 | 3314012 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Courtesy of Eric "I drone your ass" Holder

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:31 | 3314037 WmMcK
WmMcK's picture

Everybody must get droned.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:36 | 3314156 Big Slick
Big Slick's picture

DON'T DRONE ME, BRO!

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 20:19 | 3313790 Inspector Bird
Inspector Bird's picture

I've found most of George Washington's posts to be fanatical paranoid blatherings.  However, every now and then a blind squirrel finds a nut, and it seems in the past few weeks, GW has hit a few because I've found myself agreeing with some of his recent posts.

 

This entire rant is exactly what I said to my wife and kids when the note from Holder was announced.  Every bit of it, almost word for word.  Fascinating.

I think the scariest part are the Progressives who want to take our guns away to "make us safer", while approving of Obama's intention to use drones to "keep us safer".  They are clearly insane people.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 04:16 | 3314402 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

For 'americans', the group is all.

So the measure of sanity is when they agree with a comment.

Quite funny indeed for people who love to introduce themselves as stalwart defenders of the "western civilization" as they call it.

It was found out 2000 years or more that a mad man yelling that the sun was rising when the sun was rising was not enough.

Hey, but it is well known that for 'americans', facts are the propaganda/fantasy they agree upon.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:41 | 3314131 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

I found myself shaking and nodding my head all in the same post, so I didn't vote.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 20:08 | 3313767 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

 

Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-without-bill-rights-205110620.html

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:20 | 3314020 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Even without the Bill of Rights, it's a miracle it didn't spontaneously combust

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 20:31 | 3313811 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Nice catch Marcy Wheeler and you, Bastiat.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 19:28 | 3313682 q99x2
q99x2's picture

The FEDs can do anything they want as long as the military backs them. But the military will only go so far before they turn on the banksters. 

Happens with every empire.

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 05:30 | 3314428 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

Great point - once the sheeple are bled out, then we can apply the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' rule.

Til then, keep quiet about your ammo and arms purchases, bury some of them, and remember to keep in practice 'the sheeple dialect' (NBA scores, NASCAR trends, latest on Honey boo boo -- I should take my own advice as I know nothing of these).

This week was a slow sales week so I couldn't buy any silver - instead, converted $10 to 5 rolls of nickels - there's always alternatives.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 19:23 | 3313673 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

The whole point is moot. Even if it is illegal and Obama does it, Holder is not going to take any action.

Same with the banks - an unprecedented number of illegal acts. No action taken.

MF Global. Clients money stolen. No action.

 

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 02:00 | 3314329 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Stealing money through stealth inflation is one thing. The sheeple are too stupid to notice. When they start blowing up people, it attracts more attention.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:16 | 3314113 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Absolutlely Correct!

 

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 19:21 | 3313667 Lmo Mutton
Lmo Mutton's picture

Forget the lemonade stand, I am selling drone insurance.
For a measly gold Eagle you can have 6 months of drone free coverage.
Batteries not included, must stay 3 stories underground, no cell or Internet usage, may cause anal bleeding, not recommended by doctors.

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:25 | 3314117 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

You lost me at "...not recommended by doctors."

Saw a billboard yesterday: "Restless Sleep?  We've got a Doctor for that."

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 23:39 | 3314163 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Shit.  He lost me at no cell or Internet usage

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 19:16 | 3313657 Dieselclam
Dieselclam's picture

An F-16 pilot could fly through this drone loophole. The filibuster is a sideshow distraction from the real question: what happened to due process?

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:25 | 3314028 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

 what happened to due process?

I wonder if the Guiness Book of World Records has a category for Greatest Number of People Served Notice?  Is that the record Holder was going for with his smug missive?

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 19:41 | 3313709 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Exactly.

A weaponized drone. Very clever by half again, Mr. Holder.

But aquiring (by drone) an American citizen for execution by other weapons is perfectly acceptable for the president's armed forces and his staff, apparently...no court order, no judicial review, no judge or jury or defense or opportunity to cross examine "witnesses" of evidence.

Perhaps its time to form our own "posse comitatus" to oppose his ;-) 

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 22:35 | 3314045 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

posse comitatus vs. Ponzi Commie TOTUS ?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!