Obama’s “Targeted Killing Rule”

I just read Joe’s post and watched the video of FBI Director Robert Mueller, not knowing whether or not the President of the United States can assassinate an American on American soil.

Words alone cannot describe my incredulity.  I can’t sleep now.  How come this video did not go viral last year?  How come? How could we have missed this?  How come the Republicans didn’t beat Obama over the head with this every time a camera came on?  Why?  This is unbelievable.

Foxnews article published March 2012:

Obama’s “Targeted Killing Rule”

Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.

“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting

Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.

Indeed, Holder’s Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open. While Holder speaks of Americans who lead al Qaeda overseas, the implications of the speech seem broad.

  • “First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
  • second, capture is not feasible; and
  • third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,” Holder said.

Holder said the feasibility of capturing a U.S. citizen terrorist is “fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive.”

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force,” he said.

Three Americans were killed last year when lethal force was used against American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki is credited with helping plot the foiled Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and inspiring the Fort Hood shooting. The two others killed — his son and a cohort who published his online terror magazine “Inspire” — were considered by the U.S. to be collateral damage.

Asked about Mueller’s response, the Justice Department said the answer is “pretty straightforward.” 

“The legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.,” said a spokeswoman pulling excerpts from the attorney general’s speech.

Holder said the circumstance were legal when it is a case of “an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans.

The circumstances “are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad,” Holder added.

However, the attorney general, referencing legal authority in the War on Terror that dates back to the George W. Bush administration, said the Obama administration is not bound to a particular battlefield.

“Neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan,” he said.

Holder argued in his remarks that it is “simply not accurate” that the president must get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen terrorist.

“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,” he said.

But Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on Wednesday that Holder’s remarks not only would be seen by the framers of the Constitution as “the very definition of authoritarian power,” but were met “not with outcry but muted applause.”

“Holder’s new definition of ‘due process’ was perfectly Orwellian,” Turley wrote. “What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. …

“Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar ‘trust us’ approach to civil liberties of this administration,” he wrote.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/#ixzz2J3XZBUNn

Ladies and Gentlemen,

3 Americans reportedly have been assassinated with the President’s authorization.  During a time when a war has not been declared by Congress pursuant to the Constitution.  The FBI director of the United States, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our nation,  can’t answer the question of whether or not the President can murder an American in America in this described procedure…

I’m “speechless”.


6 thoughts on “Obama’s “Targeted Killing Rule”

  1. Considering how they usually introduce an idea and then start expanding on it, I’m sure they’ll decide that preserves where Himself can hunt us for sport will be next. Preserves are a great idea! Think of the jobs they will create.

    • Yes Kells, having grown up with Reagan, a true patriot, I lived my life under the assumption the republicans were like Reagan and truly different.

      Now I realize, Reagan was a “tea partier” who would be buried by the majority of republicans if they could have.

      Bush 1 & 2 were patriotic vs. terrorists, otherwise, mere progressives.

      Of course, the progressive democrats see G-d fearing, family honoring, constitution respecting Americans as the terrorists. The true terrorists aren’t Terrorists in their eyes, merely allies in their war upon America’s patriots and foundational principles.

      Who really “knew”? Now we do.

      • I think you just Summed up the Situation pretty much in a few words….

        I get the feeling those Good Americans….the one’s awake or awakening are looking around and feeling Gob-smacked at the evidence of Utter betrayal in their “beloved” GOP…..not just on little things….but on the Fundamental ideals and issues that used to Distinguish America from the rest of the Civilized world.

  2. This seems fair. They wanted to give foreign terrorist Miranda rights and a trial in federal courts to protect their rights but now they want to kill US citizens at will. More statist logic down the toilet. When you take your family for a walk in the park keep looking up.

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