When The U.S. Government Can Kill You, Explained

Mother Jones:

On Monday, the Obama administration explained when it's allowed to kill you.

Speaking to students and faculty at Northwestern University law school, Attorney General Eric Holder laid out in greater detail than ever before the legal theory behind the administration's belief that it can kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without charge or trial. In the 5,000-word speech, the nation's top law enforcement official directly confronted critics who allege that the targeted killing of American citizens violates the Constitution.

Read the whole story: Mother Jones

Comments

[byronic]

04:37 PM on 03/07/2012

If you can't beat Putin, join him...

[SamKnause]

05:52 AM on 03/07/2012

Answer;

When ever and where ever they want, for any reason they see fit.

[LudeDude714]

04:43 PM on 03/06/2012

"Since President Obama took office, he's deployed drones against terrorism suspects in an unprecedented way. But the program is covert, so although foreign governments and reporters have chronicled those strikes, no U.S. official is supposed to mention them directly." I thought Janet Reno and Clinton stomped on the constitution, Eric Holder and Obama have tken it a step further. I do not like it and nor should any American like when a sitting president can decide when it is okay and lawful to kill a citizen. From the Magna Carta in the middle ages: No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; but by lawful judgement of his peers. To the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 14th amendments of our constitution which this President swore to uphold. Once our government and President can wilfully and openly kill citizens we are headed down a slippery slope, I do not care if it is Obama, Bush, Reagan, FDR or Thomas Jefferson, this opens the door for every President to follow. Open you eye America!

[fuzzychickens]

02:25 PM on 03/07/2012

But Obama does it with charm, wit, and a nice smile.

So it's ok.

[Y3rMawm]

03:53 PM on 03/06/2012

Government's redrumed roughly 250 million of their own citizens in the 20th century alone. This should come as no surprise. When all you have is a hammer....

[praetorious]

12:22 PM on 03/06/2012

It's just a matter of time... for what I'm unclear but it's just a matter of time:

http://www.stayingawakeisfunny.com/staying-awake/2012/3/6/cows.html

[ttsgw]

11:31 AM on 03/06/2012

Russia will though become a true democracy long before America because Americans strive to become slaves of the corporations and church while Russians strive to become free.

[Y3rMawm]

03:57 PM on 03/06/2012

Only governments can institute slavery. Corps must compete, and offer fair exchange of value for value. Heck, even churches do not have the geographic monopoly that empowers government.

We will become slaves because we keep asking for Free S#!t from the gubmint without minding the unintended consequences, including how it shall be funded.

[ttsgw]

11:27 AM on 03/06/2012

When it suits him.

[BG-back]

04:36 AM on 03/06/2012

Which of the following statements is true?:

This attack on civil liberties and security WOULDN'T have happened had 9.11 not occurred

This attack on civil liberties and security COULDN'T have happened had 9.11 not occurred

[LewDan]

11:56 AM on 03/06/2012

Neither. There is no attack on civil liberties.

The U.S. maintains one of the largest militarys in the world. Its primary function is to kill people the President believes are threats to the United States. Never has military action been limited to foreign nationals only. Citizens fighting for our enemies are, and alway have been, legitimate targets.

And the idea that killing one specific threat is unconstitutional while killing people by the thousands to get one specific threat is just war, is ridiculous on its face. As is the notion that any cop on the street, tens of thousands of them, can legally kill anyone who is a threat to them or others, but the President of the United States cannot legally kill people who are threats to the people of the United States.

NEWS FLASH! Cops are charged local communities. The President of the United States is charged to serve and protect everyone. -- Oh, and there is only one Constitution for everyone. Not one for the cops and another for the President.

This country has managed to survive almost three centuries of Presidents doing, or trying to do, exactly what the current President is doing. The only difference is the irrational fear, faulty logic, and constitutional and historical ignorance being propagated by the current President's detractors and opponents.

[Bradley Greig Smith]

11:10 PM on 03/05/2012

Although this is off topic I would also like to inform those who are interested that they are currently tyring to change the chain of command for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). They want to put it under the command of the CIA. That would mean that all special forces even the Rangers would now be under the command of the CIA. In other words the CIA would be in complete control of our most elite troops as well as our drones! This would mean that the CIA would have their own army made up of thousands of our most highly trained and armed soldiers operating with no oversight from the President.

[BG-back]

04:38 AM on 03/06/2012

I think the past two presidents are a good indication of the fact that this post has more or less become a ceremonial on...

[LewDan]

12:22 PM on 03/06/2012

The President, the Commander In Chief, oversees the CIA and the JSOC. How exactly would this eliminate Presidential oversight? The Constitution says the military reports to the President. Who else they report to is entirely up to the President.

[Bradley Greig Smith]

11:01 PM on 03/05/2012

"The target has to pose an "imminent threat of violent attack" to the US and be beyond the ability of American authorities to capture, and the strike can't violate international standards governing the use of force by killing too many civilians or noncombatants".

Hogwash, this cleric posed no imminent threat nor did his son. Furthermore how many civilian deaths is considered "too many"?

Basically all he has said is that we now believe we have the authority to assassinate anyone at any time without needing to provide any evidence at all. As long as the right people sign on it could be anyone anywhere and no evidence will ever be provided. It's just the we so say corporation against their "enemies".

[LouGots]

11:38 AM on 03/06/2012

"Furthermore how many civilian deaths is considered "too many"? "

You don't know, and we're not going to tell you.

The enemy's uncertainty is our force multiplier.

Anyway, the calculation of military necessity cannot be made in advance. It depends on the tactical circumstances at the time the decision is made. If the target is the Hiroshima naval headquarters, or the Dresden rail yards that number might be considerable.

[iam7545 r]

09:06 PM on 03/05/2012

WOW - sounds more like Bush every day. If it werent for the healthcare bill I could learn to like Obama. Holder just presented the most extreme "bully" position that I have ever seen in the USA. He basically says we are at war, a position that Obama was not in favor of during the election. It looks like Obama came to his senses once he was actually responsible for something

[ejhickey2]

08:14 PM on 03/05/2012

Unofficial title of Holder’s speech:

"The Legal Foundations of Illegality”

Notice that Holder did not stick around for questions afterwards.

[ejhickey2]

08:09 PM on 03/05/2012

so if you leave the country, you can be targeted and killed without a trial. will the US gov’t at least issue Target t shirts along with passports?

[FogBelter]

07:42 PM on 03/05/2012

I don't buy the argument. Additionally, it is difficult for assassination to remain a taboo within a society if the State engages in it. I think more thought needs to be devoted to this issue.

How is what the Executive Branch of the United States Government did to Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen any different than what happened to Dr George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas? In one case Scott Roeder was the Judge, Jury and Executioner and in the other The Executive Branch of the United States Government was. I don't believe due process was involved in either of the actions, frankly.

[T Trump]

07:41 PM on 03/05/2012

The Constitution continues to be violated by this administration and the last.