Holder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups

[jimmy olsen]

His interpretation of the 5th amendment is crap

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups

Holder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups
By Pete Williams, NBC News Justice Correspondent

The U.S. government is legally justified in killing its own citizens overseas if they are involved in plotting terror attacks against America, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, offering the Obama administration's most detailed explanation so far of its controversial targeted killing program.

"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not," he said in remarks prepared for a speech at Northwestern University's law school in Chicago.

An American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen in late September.  Some civil liberties groups condemned the attack. Others, including members of Congress, called for a more complete explanation of how such a targeted killing of an American civilian was consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Do you agree with Holder's interpretation of the law?

    Yes
    62%
    No
    34%
    Can't decide
    4%

Total Votes: 4810

The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life" without due process of law.  But that due process, Holder said, doesn't necessarily come from a court.

"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," the attorney general said.

Holder said a U.S. citizen can legally be targeted in a foreign country if that person is "a senior leader of al-Qaida or associated forces," and is actively involved in planning to kill Americans.  Killing would be justified if the person poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the U.S. and cannot easily be captured.

Any military operation targeting a citizen overseas must be carried out consistent with the law of war.  "The principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering," he said.

The ACLU called Holder's explanation "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," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project.

"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," she said.

The ACLU is suing the Obama administration, seeking to have documents regarding the targeted killing program made public.

Holder said it makes no legal difference that a U.S. citizen is targeted away from a traditional battlefield.  "We are at war with a stateless enemy," he said.

While the U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was at first believed to be merely an English speaking propagandist for the Yemen based group known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. officials say he gradually assumed an operational role in the terror group.

According to federal prosecutors, Umar Abdul Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, told FBI interrogators that al Awlaki was deeply involved in planning his attempted bombing of a Detroit bound passenger jet on Christmas day in 2009.

Holder said Abdulmutallab told the FBI of "al Awlaki's specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating the bomb."

The attorney general told the law students that the government is under no legal obligation to delay a targeted killing operation until a terrorist plotter is in the process of carrying out an actual attack.

"The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning, when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear," he said.

[Iormlund]

 

I love how the West is trying its best to lose the War on Terror.

[Valmy]

Due process and judicial process are not one and the same

Huh.  Who knew?

[CountDeMoney]

Holder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups

We knew that already.

[Tonitrus]

I love how the West is trying its best to lose the War on Terror.

What is worse, is that we are agreeing to let it happen.

"... I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

[garbon]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

[Neil]

They always were.  When an American is trying to attack Americans, you're allowed to kill them.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

[garbon]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner.

[Admiral Yi]

Does the US ever try people in absentia?

[Razgovory]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner.

If you aren't smoking weed to get stoned why are you smoking it?

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner.

When products like marinol are available, the concept of using marijuana for medicinal purposes goes out the window.  It's all just stoner hype bullshit, and an excuse to get high.

[garbon]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner.

If you aren't smoking weed to get stoned why are you smoking it?

Funny you should ask that when the discussion is about people using it for medical purposes.

As far as what I think is the spirit of your question, the same reason that I don't call myself an alcoholic because I have a drink now and then. I should think it takes a certain level of use/abuse to suddenly have your usage become an identity.  Though I just check merriam-webster and according to them a stoner is anyone who habitually uses marijuana or alcohol. I guess we're all mostly stoners.

[garbon]

Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.

And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.

Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner.

When products like marinol are available, the concept of using marijuana for medicinal purposes goes out the window.  It's all just stoner hype bullshit, and an excuse to get high.

http://dying.about.com/od/symptommanagement/f/marinol_vs_MJ.htm

Marinol
Cons:

    Marinol has a slow onset of action, low absorption rate, and the amount of medication absorbed varies from person to person.

    Patients can't control the dose of medication they need to control the symptom.

    Marinol is more expensive to produce than marijuana.

Smoked Marijuana
Pros:

    Smoked marijuana has a rapid onset, bringing relief of symptoms quicker than Marinol.

    Patients have better control over dosing with smoked marijuana.

    Marijuana is easy and inexpensive to grow and distribute.

But sure, I'll freely state that I'm on the bandwagon that the federal government shouldn't outright ban marijuana.  Everyone is doing it anyways.

[CountDeMoney]

Watch it, garbon, your subscription to High Times expires soon.