Holder: MURDER “Consistent” with American Laws

So, you not convinced we are living in a fascist dictatorship yet?  OK, have you read that Holder has just said it is legal for the U.S. can MURDER its own citizens as long as they are overseas?  It’s true, read it here.

Holder said:

“The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”

Now, admittedly, he claims to be talking about American citizens engaged in an act of terrorism, but then, the U.S. govt. has declared Christians, LAWFUL gun owners, members of the TEA Party and even U.S. military veterans to be terrorists.  So if you are any of these, you best not leave the U.S. or Holder may snuff you and claim legal authority.

There’s just one little problem with all of this: our laws say you must try to convict someone BEFORE you can execute them, and even then, they are entitled to an appeal.  If you carry out an execution before you have tried, convicted and granted the automatic appeal, then this is not called an execution, it is called an assassination – which is another word for murder.  You see, as much as you and I may agree with the desire and intent (and I do), killing a U.S. citizen who is still “presumed innocent” is murder – period!  Now, exactly HOW does one get either a trial or appeal if Holder/Obama just send a drone to kill you with a hellfire because they declared you a terrorist is beyond me?

Another thing that should bother anyone who actually cares about being rational here is that this is the same Administration that bends over backward to give these rights to real terrorists – the very same rights they now claim they do not have to grant to U.S. citizens.  Help me out here: exactly when did we all fall through the looking-glass?

Oh, and before any of you from the GOP get worked up over any of this, STOP!  This crap started on YOUR president’s watch.  That’s right, Republicans, BUSH started this crap.  So what do you say we ALL start worrying less about the other guy’s Party and start cleaning our own houses before there’s no country left to fight over, huh?


When you start using my enemy’s reasoning and tactics to protect me, then who – exactly – is my enemy: them, or you?

14 thoughts on “Holder: MURDER “Consistent” with American Laws

  1. @ joe – Ia m hung up on this one (I see your implications), but I need to settle a statement before I can move on, and take a position. You write:

    “the U.S. govt. has declared Christians, LAWFUL gun owners, members of the TEA Party and even U.S. military veterans to be terrorists”

    Is that credibly documented somewhere, because if it is, then we have a serious damn problem in the U.S., and the word needs to be passed around in a very vigorous manner. Hell I might even hire an attorney, and start tackling this position in the courts.

    • Augger,

      Yes, there was an official govt. document that came out of some agency in Kansas or Missouri or somewhere in that region (sorry, don’t remember right off the bat) that said Vets, TEA Party members and some others were indicators of likely domestic terrorism. Search for it, you’ll find it.

      You will find stories like this one:


      And the new defense act that was passed and signed into law allows the govt. to arbitrarily declare ANYONE a terrorist and then pick them up and hold them indefinitely without warrant or legal recourse.


      People have been screaming about this for a while now, and we – as a society – have been ignoring the “nut cases.” Well, now the govt. has everything it needs, the only thing keeping us from living in a NAZI-styled regime is the simple fact that they are not yet ready to pull the trigger. But make no mistake, the laws have been passed to allow ALL of this and more. None of it is Constitutional, but that doesn’t matter because the Constitution was destroyed long ago.

  2. Not disputing your sources, and I am working through them, but I just feel the need to say;

    I know I have used them in the past, and still use them today, but I am becoming increasingly worried about .com, .org., and .net sources for things.

    I still read them, but I am starting to look deeper at their citations, and their histories.

    I’ve been mislead before. Sometimes the progressive agenda is wrapped in conservative clothing (but i already know that you know this). 😦

    • Augger,

      I hear you. I’ve been looking for the story on line. I was able to confirm it came from a government agency out of Oklahoma several years ago. It made the news and was all over conservative talk radio at the time as it declared American veterans to be “domestic terrorists.”

      As for the rest, by all means, check the sourcing. But understand, you cannot accept the govt. at its word because it IS speaking Orwellian – as in “Five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING the United States of America.” Do you think the average American REALLY understood what he was saying to them? Well, hence forth, it will serve us all to assume we live in cold war Russia and start assuming that whatever our govt. says is governed by the 180 degree rule.

      Sad as it makes me to say this, our govt. lies to us as a matter of routine now – and it’s mostly because they think they have succeeded in making us all stupid lemmings (i.e. they think the school system has succeeded).

      • Agreed, dot.gov sites are not much better for sure. One has to have to ability to read through the smoke screens. Pretty much anything they would claim, I go to case law, and state/federal statutes to substantiate (when I have time).

        (shrugs) We live in a time of intellectual deception.

  3. I’m really torn on this one.

    The issue of law isn’t actually in play and is a false argument. There are no charges involved because the American in question is an enemy combatant working with the enemy. It’s war, not law.

    On the other hand – and this part is important and hasn’t been mentioned – Obama demands that there be no oversight of his decisions as to who to kill and when, where, and how to killed them.

    • jonolan,

      Sorry, but the law DOES apply here. To be labeled an enemy combatant requires a uniformed opposition AND declaration of war. We have neither. If Timothy McVeigh can be considered an American citizen and had to be arrested charged and convicted, then the Americans helping to attack this nation should fall under the same legal guidelines.

      This is part of the problem: our govt. has NOT followed the law (i.e. Constitution) on these matters since WW II.

      • Actually, it doesn’t and never has a uniformed opposition and declaration of war. It only requires armed opposition and a state of hostilities, though some form of legal authorization for the use of military force is generally considered a good thing to have.

        The McVeigh analogy is also horribly flawed. A lone operative working within our borders is a far cry from an American working with a foreign groups of attackers outside of those borders and within an acknowledged theater of engagement.

        I’ll admit, though, that “acknowledged theater of engagement” has gotten overly fuzzy in the War on Terrorism.

        As I said, I’m torn. I don’t like the idea of this because of where it could lead, but I also can see no reason to attempt to capture and try an American who is effectively serving with enemy forces overseas. They’re just another valid target in that case and, if important enough to the enemy, certainly a reasonable target for assassination.

        I can’t really complain too much about the government doing something that I’d gladly do myself.

        • The Constitution DOES require a declaration of war to commit U.S. troops, and the earliest Presidents (you know, the guys who wrote the Constitution) demonstrated this through their own actions. This example was followed until after WW II.

          McVeigh was NOT “a lone terrorist.” He had help. He also thought of himself as being at war with our govt. Analogy holds – especially since the Islamic terrorists tend to fight as disconnected cells, and because many of those cells are inside the borders – just like Mcveigh.

          Your attempt to use the term “theater of engagement” is misapplied. That assumes a uniformed combatant force that has declared war. If this is the case, show me what country is supporting these terrorists. Show me when we declared war on them. Show me how they would be any different than a drug cartel or mafia. In fact, the example of the cartels and mafia organizations takes you right back to McVeigh and the issue of declaring war. Have we ever declared war on the cartels and sent the U.S. military – in force – to wage combat operations on them? And do we treat them as military combatants when we catch them?

          I can’t really complain too much about the government doing something that I’d gladly do myself.

          Sorry to hear that, as it makes you no better than the people attacking us. They see us as being outside the law, too. So, if we are willing to abandon our laws to fight them, we become the flip side of the same coin with no way to argue we are any better than they are.

          • I’d reply with a list of early undeclared military actions by the US but it’d be too long. Here’s a link to one that just focuses on Naval and Marine deployments. http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

            The comparatively few such engagements that were declared wars are noted in each event’s description.

            You see, the DOESN’T say that a declaration of war must be used – that’s why they chose “declare” over “make” in the wording. In fact, in 1987 the draft of the Constitution had that change from make to declare.

            What has changed in the post-WW2 world is who had the authority to use such force. Before, it was Congress unless America needed to repel a sudden attack. After, it was the POTUS or Congress, with the POTUS doing it more and more often.

            You have, like a great many, a very comforting fantasy about the history of our country. It’s time to put it aside though and deal with reality. We are the greatest nation on earth but we are not, and never have been, the Utopian fools that so many were taught we were.

          • I’ve NEVER said we were a Utopia. We’ve been far from it. I am WELL aware of our MANY mistakes. I would place this idea that we can use military force whenever we want when our soil is not being attacked among them – right along with this notion that we can “interpret” the Constitution to suit our “needs” (i.e. make exceptions to suit our desires) whenever we “feel” we’re justified. I may have been mistaken about the military action, but it seems you have accepted the idea that we can “amend” the Constitution without having to bother with the amendment process. Or would you rather we simply ignore it in the name of being “realistic” or “practical?”

            I can see I’m not going to convince you that there is a problem with assassinating American citizens without any attempt at due process. For your sake, I hope you never find yourself on one of those lists. But understand this: given the current trend in our govt., if you DO NOT find yourself on one of these “enemy of the State” lists, you are probably on the wrong side of liberty.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.