Skip to comments.Was Breitbart LEGALLY Assassinated?
Posted on 03/04/2012 8:28:17 AM PST by null and void
If Breitbart was assassinated, it could be perfectly legal under current US laws and policy.
CIA Lawyers Maintains Citizens Could be Targets if they are at War With the U.S.What is a weapon?
December 1, 2011
The Associated Press has reported that top national security lawyers in the Obama administration have determined that U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaeda.
Answering questions at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric who Obama descirbed as "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Al-Alwaki had been killed in a September 30 U.S. drone strike led by the CIA in the mountains of Yemen. The radical, whos fiery sermons made him a larger-than-life figure in the world of Jihad, had long eluded capture by CIA and Yemeni security operatives.
However, in 2011, after days of surveillance, the New York Times reported, armed drones operated by the CIA took off from a new secret American base in the Arabian Peninsula, crossed into the northern Yemen border and rained a barrage of Hellfire missiles at a car carrying al-Alwaki and other top operatives from Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.
According to the AP, the government lawyers - CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson - did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy, the AP reported.
Is someone who threatened to end the Obama presidency "at war" with the U.S. in the eyes of the president?
IF the president determined that Andrew Breitbart's release of video of his college days would threaten his presidency, and
IF the president believes his presidency is essential to the continuation of the US government,
THEN the president would be OBLIGATED to remove the threat.
As such he would be required, in his own mind, to issue a presidential finding that Andrew Beritbart needs to be eliminated before the videos are released.
The CIA, would legally be bound to follow the presidential directive and eliminate the threat in a timely fashion.
After all, destabilizing the US government is an act of war, and in perfect alignment with al Qaeda's goals, isn't it? Isn't it?
Although some of us old fashioned folks, bitterly clinging to the Constitution, might argue that it is a freedom of speech issue
Andrew B. had a LOT of enemies, didn’t he? Why wouldn’t he have a security detail.
People like Beck, Rush, Hannity, et al, avail themselves of security details.
Don’t ex-presidents and former first ladies still get government provided security?
Was it his normal routine to walk alone at night? Was that AB’s way to clear his mind or think over his ideas. Was it a way to just relax before going home?
Was it his routine? And, if he didn’t have a security detail, why not?
Do you find the date odd?
I think we’re doing exactly what Breitart would have wanted.
There’s one thing that gives me pause though, and that is that if this was an assassination, his family has got to be terrified. I would think they are safe because if any of them gets bumped off any time soon it will only confirm the suspicions. But they may want things quiet just because they know what visibility can do to a person who crosses the Soros thugocracy. We know that Breitbart’s father-in-law changed his story about not knowing anything about a heart condition. My guess is that he first gave his honest answer and then when it became clear that people weren’t buying the “natural death” explanation he got scared for his daughter and grandkids and wanted things to just be quiet so they can grieve.
I can understand that and want to honor that. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to forget that the discrepancies have never been explained. We’ll never know for sure what happened, but it’s suspicious, especially knowing what I do about the threats to the media companies over the eligibility issue - and that Breitbart hadn’t been in the group that was initially threatened, that he had suddenly shown an interest in talking to Arpaio, and that the Soros gang didn’t have time to do the threat thing with Breitbart before he could have spilled the beans on the eligibility story.
If the Soros gang thinks the story of threats (and/or violence to the media if they reported about who he is) is going to fade quietly into the night they have another think coming. This is just the beginning of the public revealing of who these people really are and what they’ve been doing to this once-free nation.
It would be interesting to have somebody analyze the non-verbals in that video.
Why did he say he had tapes of Obama at CPAC? Why didn’t he just release the tapes when he thought the time was right?
It would seem AB was, for some reason, putting himself in jeopardy by talking about these Obama tapes.
Maybe that is why the *tin foil* (including mine) is pinging “11”.
It makes no sense to talk about what you have on someone and think they would not take action to keep it from being released.
Certainly. Especially considering that he had a tape purportedly of Ayers and Obama from Bams college days and recently had dinner with Ayers.
Agree. Sadly, I agree, wolf24.
Timing this right after Breitbart had spoken with Arpaio and right before Arpaio gave the press conference serves a very EFFECTIVE warning shot across the bow to any media people who might have been thinking about actually reporting the evidence from the presser.
A Freeper who was at that presser said the air went out of the room as everybody in the room grasped the reality that Obama is a fraud. With that as a backdrop, the reporters’ lapdog attacks on Arpaio rather than addressing the substance of the evidence is a dead giveaway that they had their orders and knew they better obey.
Nobody in the media would report the specific evidence presented at the presser, nor would they post video of it so people could see for themselves. As far as I know, the only place to see the video is at http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/see-evidence-of-fraud-in-obama-birth-certificate/ .
I read it, and thank you.
God Bless Andrew’s brave fearless soul.
We continue to fight.
Even the JFK assassination cannot be fully explained - even to this day, all these years later.
How long before Andrew B.’s case be fully settled?
It's also available at Western Center for Journalism
I watched the full hour and twenty minute presentation. Damning, to put it mildly.
Castle—A mystery show on ABC monday night at 10— rather well written for the most part. About a mystery writer named Castle shadowing and helping a NY police detective who is a beautiful woman. Its rather well done for TV fare— This show as one of the better ones.
Hi, stuck-in-new-orleans, I’m often a *tin foil* nut job; but occasionally, I’m right.
Know where Kenner is? I was “stuck-in-kenner” years ago. Plan to visit NO soon, if only by webcam. I like NO!
Does anybody know of somebody who does that kind of analysis?
Thanks for the post; ping; article (as important as anything you have written...BTTT!); thread (yes I read every post and clicked on many links).
R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart. Thank you, sir.
Yep. Used to live in Kenner for a while. Be safe visiting nola.
” The American government, under Obama, has turned on the citizens of America.”
” They have already crossed the rubicon of deliberate mass murder with Operation Fast And Furious/Murdergate.
Killing an AB or three now would mean nothing to them.”
Just remember, Breitbart was actually dangerous. He brought down Weiner, he brought down ACORN, he brought down Sherrod (sp?). He was not just some windbag who made people uncomfortable. He actually was cleaning out the rats nest.
He also along w Okeefe nailed NPR to the wall.
"Conspiracy theories" is a nasty propaganda buzzphrase invented by leftist propaganda artists. Many times I post the dictionary defnition of "conspiracy". It does not mean "paranoid fantasy".
I don't know why Breitbart died, and neither do you.
If his wife and friends are reading this, here is my message to them:
Andrew Breitbart was a wonderful, brillianty, funny, courageous and principled human being. His eternal soul - his immortal self - is not extinguished; he continues his journey. And his mission here - to expose "progressive" leftist lies and tyranny and thus de-fang them - will continue, and those on the side of the Constitution will continue to be inspired by Andrew's fighting spirit. He will not be forgotten and many are grieving with you.
And if his death involved foul play, he will be avenged.
As I wrote in another thread, anyone who would dismiss the possibility of an assassination out-of-hand in this case has no understanding of the forces who are opposing freedom and liberty in this fight.
Why not? After all, the Liberal-leaning MSM has already pronounced the cause of his death as 'natural causes' before the autopsy.
Precisely right. The government has been trashing the Constitution right along. When backing the The Government and remaining faithful to the Constitution become incompatible, the correct choice makes it thus: whoever holds fast to the Constitution is an enemy of the State.
Therefore, Obama and his minions could declare someone hostile to "The Government", because the Government has become as illegitimate as its Chief Executive's usurpations.
This is America.
Why do people need security details?
Don't leave out that at CPAC he said he had video, and was going to vett Obama using it. That direct threat of exposing the Usurper for what he is--and isn't--provides a very strong motive for foul play.
The video’s up now on youtube:
One hour and 21 minutes.
If you want to watch it without going to youtube this will put just the video in your browser:
Fascinating line of thought, butterdezillion.
Nice message LJ.
I knew I would forget a lot of people I should have pinged. Ping to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2856341/posts
Thanks so much!
Thank you. I should pray for his soul, haven’t yet.
We are in dire times.
I meant to ping you to this one too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2856341/posts
I think your theory is dead-on. With Obamacare there would be a national database of medical records. That would make it REALLY easy for the government to assassinate people they considered “dangerous to national security”.
“Specialized Government Functions. We may use and disclose your medical information for national security and intelligence activities authorized by law or for protective services of the President.”
What does my medical record have to do with “protective services of the President”? There is a different category for “Threats to Health or Safety” - where they say they will disclose or use medical information to “avert a serious threat to health and safety” - including for law enforcement purposes. So the reference to protecting the President is not about the clinic informing somebody that a crazy person is making threats against Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.