Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Targeted Assassinations...My, How Quiet The Liberals Are
Flopping Aces ^ | 03-05-12 | Curt

Posted on 03/06/2012 7:00:37 AM PST by Starman417


Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant cleric who was an American citizen, was killed in Yemen

While I don't disagree with the Administration over this policy, I find the whole situation ironic. It was just a few years ago liberals were crying and protesting all over the fact that the United States waterboarded a few high level terrorists.

But I guess it's ok to just a put a bullet in their head rather than making them a widdle bit scared with water eh?

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“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,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

...While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘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.”

Like I noted, I agree with the Administration.

But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; assassination; holder; obama

1 posted on 03/06/2012 7:00:43 AM PST by Starman417
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Starman417
"it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. "
All you gotta is show me where in the constitution this exists...
2 posted on 03/06/2012 7:29:49 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
As much as I despise al-Alwaki and those like him, and I acknowledge he would have killed all of us if he could, the administration's version of “due process,” whatever that is, will come back to haunt us in the future. Al-Alwaki's teenage son was also killed in the attack. Where was his due process? What about the due process of the deaths of so many innocent people who have been killed in the drone strikes, simply because they happen to be in an extended family compound or marketplace? I am not against the concept of drone strikes, but the cavalier attitude this administration has when it comes to killing people is more reminiscent of Stalin than it is of the ideal upon which America was founded—liberty and justice for all. What will you do when the government decides you or your family members are a threat because you have a weapons collection or voice your protest against gay marriage or the end of public prayer?
3 posted on 03/06/2012 7:37:23 AM PST by binreadin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

On the issue of quiet - where is what’s her name the war protester? Is war suddenly good because we have a Democrat for President? I don’t see the folks protesting every Friday at my post office either. Hmmm


4 posted on 03/06/2012 8:00:18 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: binreadin

Much as I truly hate to defend Obama...

If you join an enemy army, or, in this case, a militant enemy NGO, you don’t get “due process” any more than any other enemy soldier or, for that matter, factory workers in a munitions plant. You get killed when and if the opportunity arises.

And, given the tendency for Islamic terrorism to run in tribes and families, the teenage son was a bonus.


5 posted on 03/06/2012 8:19:31 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
The pint is not the Policy.

The point is that since it's Obama’s Policy rather than a Republican President's Policy, there is no selective outrage by the Left.

6 posted on 03/06/2012 8:22:55 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (New Tagline under construction, please watch your step.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

The POINT is not the Policy. lol


7 posted on 03/06/2012 8:23:57 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (New Tagline under construction, please watch your step.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I am very tempted to agree with you wholeheartedly. al-Alwaki was obviously a traitor, and his son would not be a candidate for the Boy Scouts anytime soon. The problem is not the target, but the process. Today it's open season on Islamic terrorists, but who will it be tomorrow? Who makes that decision? What, exactly, is the process? Is there any real process involved, or a bunch of Obamanite patsies/appointees sitting around a table in a group-think mode and agreeing to target anyone considered an enemy of the administration?
8 posted on 03/06/2012 10:09:15 AM PST by binreadin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
"On the issue of quiet - where is what’s her name the war protester? Is war suddenly good because we have a Democrat for President?"

In fairness to Cindy Sheehan, she has remained intellectually and philosophically consistent and has continued protesting; she's just not getting the coverage she recieved when GWB was POTUS. The MSM has dropped her like a bad habit.

Unsurprisingly, she's had a few recent problems with her taxes...

9 posted on 03/06/2012 10:15:08 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
"Much as I truly hate to defend Obama...If you join an enemy army, or, in this case, a militant enemy NGO, you don’t get “due process”..."

The problem is who gets to define, "enemy army." A bureaucratic apparatus hell bent on increasing in size and control can easily label any individual calling for smaller government, "an enemy of the state."

10 posted on 03/06/2012 10:19:09 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: binreadin

That is a problem. But right now we’re tying the hands of our troops. We shouldn’t give a d@mn about enemy civilians. (aka “Afghanis”) who get between us and somebody we need to kill. Nor should we allow them to riot when we’re conducting wartime operations over there.

And enemies should not be able to use their “not-a-state-actor” status to demand that we serve papers and give them a trial as criminals rather than simply killing them as the opportunity allows.

I’ll wait for them outlaw the NRA or Boy Scouts and take my chances.


11 posted on 03/06/2012 10:19:32 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

You make a really good point. I’m for napalming all those rioting scum, and I agree that with our ridiculous ROEs our troops need all the help they can get. I’m just making the point we also need to think long-term about these issues as well. We are perceived as weak in battle because we try to spare so many civilians, and our sneak-attack drone strikes, which also cause a lot of peripheral damage, are seen as cowardly. This causes us to be even more despised. I wouldn’t worry about that if we were prepared to just kill as many people as we probably need to, but we aren’t.


12 posted on 03/06/2012 11:21:32 AM PST by binreadin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson