This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Constitutional Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill You On His Own Discretion" Without Charge or Trial
OBAMA SAYS HE CAN ASSASSINATE OR INDEFINITELY DETAIN AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS OF LAW
I've previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.
This may sound over-the-top.
But nationally-recognized constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley (the second most cited law professor in the country, one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases, who has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues, who ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by a well-known judge) said yesterday on C-Span (starting at 15:50):
It's even worse than coming into your house. President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just were just at a panel two weeks ago and they reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.
You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion
***
I don't think the the Framers ever anticipated that. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn't relax those fingers ...
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER GIVEN A RATIONALE FOR ASSASSINATION
While one might assume that the government has given a valid justification for his claim that he can assassinate anyone anywhere, the Washington Post noted yesterday regarding assassination by drone:
In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.
***
“They’ve based it on the personal legitimacy of [President] Obama — the ‘trust me’ concept,” [American University law professor Kenneth Anderson] said. “That’s not a viable concept for a president going forward.”
***
Under domestic law, the administration considers [assassinations] to be covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In two key sentences that have no expiration date, the AUMF gives the president sole power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, groups or persons who committed or aided the attacks, and to prevent future attacks. [But the government just broadened the authorization for use of military force from those who attacked us on 9/11 to include the Taliban and the vague category of "associated forces".]
***
The authorization did not address targets’ nationality or set geographical boundaries, and there was “nothing about the permission of the government” of any country where a terrorist might be found, the former official said.
ALMOST ANY AMERICAN COULD BE ARBITRARILY LABELED A "TERRORIST"
As I've previously noted, this is especially concerning when almost any American could be labeled a "terrorist" if the government doesn't happen to like them:
It is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. [And the FBI says that activists who investigate factory farms can be prosecuted as terrorists.] And see this.
And it is problematic in a period in which FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”, and even former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – admitst hat he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.
And it is counter-productive in an age when the government – instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer – are doing things which increase the risk of terrorism.
And it is insane in a time of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.
And when the “War on Terror” in the Middle East and North Africa which is being used to justify the attack on Americans was planned long before 9/11.
And when Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. And 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but wasn’t stopped. Indeed, no one in Washington even wants to hear how 9/11 happened, even though that is necessary to stop future terrorist attacks. And the military has bombed a bunch of oil-rich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Laden years ago.
***
And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
»
- advertisements -
Iraq is nothing short of a criminal disaster.
The forgone costs, one Trillion USD is now complete. And the human cost is not even something you can put a price tag on.
Iraq is Shia, anti-american, pro Iran.
Congradulations.
I am sure oppression is the only option. That or you start putting these people on trial.
Keep that sort of talk up and you will get a permanent holiday courtesy of Mr Obama.
Basically a law that allows banksters to have murdered who they wish, when their ownership finally includes the entire whitehouse.
Kina
Obama will not be the first to utilize this option. The next guy will.
Just like Bush wasn't the first to authorize the killing of a US citizen on foriegn soil.
ZH definately a suspicious site.... time to cull the Tyler Durdens the President shall decree.
Can't wait until Joe Biden gets this memo- he'll jump into his Trans Am and start picking us off at random.....
Americans earning under $100,000 possible terrorists. Lets make a list.
Don't make too much noise or the spooks will tell Mr Obama you are a terrorist.
So wonder who the first person Obama will have murdered? Rand Paul a terrorist maybe?
Already did.google.
Could a newly inaugurated president do this to the preceding president, based on policy disagreements?
Could a current president do this to a challenger from another political party?
These speculations are just hypothetical, but intrigue me nonetheless.
Time for a National "Make My Day" er, well, day.
Hmm... so establish infinite detention or assassination on the US mainland (including US citizens) if they are "terrorists"...
...then it's just a matter of declaring that <insert list of "undesirables here> are "terrorists" and bingo! All the legal protections are waived and TPTB can do whatever they like to them?
Shit, and I thought it was bad here in the UK.
Has this bill gone through already?
It is awaiting the Dear Leader's robo-pen...it easily passed both chambers of Congress!
I remember reading the language of the bill recently, and one also qualifies for assassination or indefinite detention as a result of "belligerent actions" against the United States. That could really mean ANYTHING they deem unacceptable!
Simulaneously, the govt. is actively getting contractor bids to staff and run the FEMA (concentration) camps!
The REAL danger is that the Dept of Homeland Security has put out memos in the past couple of years that have been leaked which define "potential domestic terrorists" as: gun owners Constitutionalists, food stockpilers, gold and silver hoarders, Christians, anti-abortion advocates, Ron Paul supporters, those against illegal immigration, States' rights advocates, and on and on....
What people MUST realize is that "middle eastern terrorists" was just the guise to kick off the police state....the ultimate aim is we, the American people, when the SHTF.
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
Awesopme work Mr. Washington. Thanks for looking out for the sheeple!
Isn't it awesome, like totally, how these hollyweird hebs help craft and reinforce the message:
http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=951614011001
In the long run simple Entropy destroys the best laid plans.
Come on people. Voting for Ron Paul is not enough. Not if is true that there is an agenda to drive the US off a cliff through debt in order to steal the resources of this great country, using war with Iran and the Patriot Act to lock up dissidents to turn this country into some kind of gulag. How could anyone think that, and, that that the elections won't be rigged like in other Banana Republics?
We know that even if it was found out later, by some miracle of God, that the some private non-profit 'activist' group like the 'Free Banking Association of America' was responsible for hiring Blackwater types to hack into the Diebold vote counting machines and tamper with the elections, would any one get punished? Or, would they just blame it on some low level 'rogue' employee and move on, like they did with the French dude from Goldman Sachs? Hell, they could even blame it on Anonymous and have an excuse to round them up.
I mean come on. If it's that bad, it's that bad. No? It's either that bad, or it isn't.
I'm afraid to post what I really think.
oh go ahead and tell us what you think, Tuesday is a long way off
Never would have thought in my life time this would remotely be possible in the US.
Americans, like the Jews of the 1930's are sitting back and allowing it to happen right before their eyes so I can't say I will shed any tears for us when the inevitable day comes when the roundups start. We have seen this page in history before yet we are more interested in who won survivor or DWTS than we are what laws are being stuffed down our throats from the halls of CONgress. No sympathy whatsoever.
What would you have an American do? I'm truly curious. Should we start to gather together and plan physical resistance? If that doesn't pan out, should we act anyway, solo? I think both of those options are likely to:
1. Be completely ineffectual and result in immediate death or imprisonment, and
2. Give the guvmint even more reason to clamp down harder.
So what do you have in mind?
He can start with those ass-fuck bankers
You have it ass-backwards. Who do you think gives him the hit list?
I think when the end is near and the Nazi Constitution, I mean Patriot Act, is in full force, and everyone with a free mind is being rounded up and taken to FEMA camps for indefinite questioning because they expressed concern about the arrests of University Professors, writers, or other voices opposed to the War in Iran, I will ask Obama to kill me.
It wont be the " professors and writers ". It will be the citizens who question government by fiat. It will be the Constitutionalists, the 2nd Ammendment supporters, the "smaller govt" proponents, the preppers and gold bugs first.
And the "professors and writers and students" will cheer with glee. Afterwords, and only then, after displaying that horror for all to see - as an object lesson, will they come for the others - but only the ones who dont fall in line.
That will be very few indeed with the others already gone.
READ HISTORY, JACK! Or Would that take away from your tokin time?
“President Obama … Says That He Can Kill You On His Own Discretion"
Do you think he'll target Reggie because of his ridiculous posts on Zerohedge? I sure hope so....
Nah- he'll start with Gingers with butchy lil haircuts first......
Come to my little camp in NC and we'll dance a little Magpul jig together, Ginger.
Cue the banjo music.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvPBAK6T8E
You got it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yt9R0I3gSk
Really?
You would support this law so that people like Reggie could be silenced?
Who do you work for?
"Who do you work for?"
I bid on contracts mostly from Langley.
Now that's funny.
'I bid on contracts mostly from Langley'
Just like Zappas father.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html
Wait - was I supposed to be shocked, surprised or otherwise dismayed?
McCarthy era redux. All someone who doesn't like you has to do is point a finger and accuse you of being a terrorist and you are done. You will not even have a chance to try to prove the negative (impossible, e.g. try and prove that there is no Santa Claus); you will be jailed without due process or trial or simply shot.
I am sick of the war of semantics. If they are on our side, we call them "freedom fighters" but if they are on the other side, they are "terrorists". Their acts are the same. These are the kinds of tactics Joseph Stalin and his charming head of secret service, Berya have used to create abject terror among the population. Is this a free country or a gulag?
The answer? Support Dr. Ron Paul with everything you have and get all your friends and family to do the same. Additionally (as an insurance policy), you might consider expatriating to a free country.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -Sinclair Lewis
Not just McCarthyism, but I think we can expect some Salem Witch Trial scenarios. Those who seek to oppress will hide behind the "morality" cloak of religion, and will paint those who question them as immoral and not deserving of rights. There's a great quote in a Tom Clancy novel about how those who proclaim they are fighting in the name of God are justified in doing any and all torture, rape, murder, etc. because those who fight against them are fighting against God.
I am not anti-faith, but I foresee those who want to hold onto power using religion as a tool to rally blind obedience to very "ungodly" policies and actions.
"McCarthy era redux"
To bad he turned out to be right in the "light of history". But ignorant folks still use his name as a profanic epithet.
This approach was perfected by "Honest Abe" Lincoln, 1861 to 1865.
NO! NO! NO! You have fucked up your country...stay the hell away from mine!
LOL!
But the Americans who want to get away from the US are exactly the ones you don't want to exclude, because they'll do their best to prevent it all happening in your country when it's your turn for some 'hope & change'.
Just to be provocative, does anyone think Paul will support an amendment to eliminate Executive Orders if elected? There is no constitutional basis for them, they have possibly gotten one president killed, and there is no estimating how much civil and criminal litigation has resulted from them. At the moment, I don't see anyone in the field of contenders who would uphold the constitution better than Paul, but would he go this far?
would he go this far?
I doubt it. Executive orders have been issued for over two hundred years and the only one shot down was Truman's order to nationalize the operations of steel mills during the Korean War. Mostly they are directives to federal executive agencies as to how to carry out tasks that are required or allowed by statute. As such, ironically, executive orders would be the medium through which Paul would initiate the scaling down federal gov't. For his other order of business, research the Plum Book.
Dr. Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He would most likely be willing to eliminate Exec. Orders but first he would have to issue one declaring all prior ones null and void...
If President Paul could nullify all prior executive orders, the next president (who will not be a libertarian because of the chaos and pain caused to the 45% feeding at the trough) would merely adopt all prior executive orders as his own. Anything that can be reversed itself can be reversed.
We reached the tipping point when Bush was elected. There is not a way to undo the Byzantine structure of potential oppression without changing the attitudes and understand of the 45% and securing their support even though they will lose their government benefits. I don't see it happening. Tell me I am wrong.
If you want to know who is going to be targeted in the first wave, look in the mirror.
...There is not a way to undo the Byzantine structure of potential oppression without changing the attitudes and understand of the 45% and securing their support even though they will lose their government benefits. I don't see it happening. Tell me I am wrong.
I wish I could. But the trough is just too big now, and the people grazing on it will not want their access to it disturbed.
There's no orderly dismantling of the system now; too many have sold their souls to it.
but first he would have to issue one declaring all prior ones null and void...
Nah. Something that is null and void does not have to be overturned. For example, a federal or state statute that is ruled unconstitutional does not have to be repealed (usually it is, but some states defiantly let them sit on the books); it's just a dead letter.
The president could ask Congress to pass a bill, or he could ask the Supremes to rule on the issue (an 'advisory opinion', as these are called). He could even ask that a constitutional amendment be sent to the states for ratification.
In the meantime, he could simply decline to enforce all existing orders.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are NULL AND VOID.
--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
As there are no laws authorising Executive Orders does that make EO's double nullities??