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
The autopsy done by the government? That one? I’m guessing that Mr. Breitbart died in Los Angeles. Who controls that city? Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa? Before being elected to public office, Villaraigosa was a labor organizer. Villaraigosa served as a national co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and as a member of President Barack Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board. Mr. Villaraigosa is the former head of M.E.Ch.A. (Spanish: Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán; “Chican@ Student Movement of Aztlán”, the @ being a gender neutral inflection) is an organization that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment through political action. The acronym of the organization’s name is the Spanish word mecha, which means “fuse”. The motto of MEChA is ‘La Union Hace La Fuerza’ (Unity makes strength). That’s who you expect an impartial autopsy from? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Please post a source for your Orson Bean comment.
You think his grieving family is reading this thread? No? Then why do you have a problem discussing it? ANd did you read that there are methods to kill people that are undetectable? They really exist? Not fantasy.
Odd, I read the exact opposite. His FIL was quoted as NOT knowing that Breitbart had a heart condidion. Butterdezillion is looking for any comments made before Breitbart's death about a heart condition, and she also read Orson Bean's comment that he did not know of any heart condition.
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.
Exactly. Anyone who doesn’t very clearly see this has rainbow glasses on. And would have thought that Hitler didn’t really mean what he said, if they lived in Germany in the 30’s.
Actually the beauty is, whether or not Orson Bean made a comment about AB’s heart condition doesn’t matter, real or not a comment like that properly disseminated (and quickly before anyone gets any ideas) just makes the story more solid. Again, from my previous post - the way to make an ‘action’ seem to be an accident is to exploit pre-existing conditions in the target.
You would have an alcoholic fall down stairs or out a window.
If the mark has been known to be depressed (even slightly) they would ‘commit suicide.’
For someone who is a private pilot you’d have a “malfunctioning” plane (think induced metal fatigue in the control cables).
The point is, accident or not - the public can now never be sure. This keeps the sheep properly confused - and that is the point of good wetwork! A job well done.
This post was not about whether Breitbart was assassinated. It was about whether Breitbart could LEGALLY be assassinated, and argues that according to the laws in effect at this time only the executive branch (which, I note, is currently illegally headed by Obama) can determine who is an “enemy” and thus can be LEGALLY assassinated. Presumably the POTUS can also decide by what means the assassination is to occur.
Given those things, what would LEGALLY stop Obama from deciding that Breitbart, or you or me, is an “enemy” and they will be killed by heart attack-inducing frozen poison dart?
What in our country protects us from having Obama decide we’re an enemy and kill us through covert means?
That’s what this post is about. It is a chilling question that demands an answer. Preferably from the people who passed the laws.
This thread is about whether it would be legal for Breitbart to be assassinated.
But on the subject of Breitbart’s health, I am interested if you’ve got any report pre-dating March 1, 2012 where it is said that Breitbart had a heart condition or was hospitalized within the past year, because the initial Reuters report had his father-in-law saying he knew of no cardiac problems and the spokesman for the coroner’s office saying Breitbart hadn’t been seen by a doctor for over a year.
Let's wait for the autopsy report. We do know that his business partner said he had a serious heart condition that required hospitalization just last Spring. We do know that he collapse with what looked like a massive Myocardial Infarction and we also know that the family, his company and the county all reported that he died from apparent natural causes.
Give the conspiracy theories a rest. Let Andrew rest. He deserves the rest he was a tireless warrior for the cause.
Even worse - the power to kill or detain them if they are BELLIGERENT (with that term left legally undefined).
We know that Homeland Security considers small-government and pro-life advocates to be dangerous and told all law enforcement personnel to watch out for them. I imagine it would be really, really easy to go from that to saying they are “belligerent” - in which case they can be detained or killed WITH NO DUE PROCESS, APPEAL, OR EVEN KNOWLEDGE ACCESSIBLE TO EITHER THE VICTIM OR THE PUBLIC.
And this was approved by the vast majority of our Congress members.
I want to hear every one of them who voted for that explain to me exactly how this country at this moment PROTECTS somebody like Andrew Breitbart from being labeled by Obama as a belligerent “enemy” and LEGALLY assassinated by a heart-attack-inducing frozen poison dart.
BTW, if Obama said he would never use that power then we can bet our bottom dollar that Breitbart was assassinated. The way we know when Obama is lying is by whether his lips are moving.
You've sure stirred up the hornet's nest. Everybody came out for this one.
Show me a claim from BEFORE March 1, 2012 which says that Breitbart had heart problems.
The initial Reuters report had his father-in-law saying he knew of no cardiac problems and had the spokesman for the coroner’s office saying Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor for over a year. It is the DISCREPANCIES as well as the TIMING that make this death suspicious.
Breitbart was in a long conversation with a liberal at a bar in his neighborhood before he went home. If somebody was trying to track him it would have been a piece of cake to know where he was and to follow him. Interesting that a neighbor saw him when he fell. Must have been the night to be outside walking at midnight, on a Wednesday night.
Obama not using absolute power is like his wife passing up fried food.
Steve Bannon, who was working on several projects with Andrew stated on Hanity that Andrew had heart issues. Check out the video at 5:15 he directly states that he had a heart problem and all the rumors are just nonsense.
As for legal assassination of an American Citizen on American soil. No it is NEVER legal to assassinate a citizen on American soil. If he was an activate jehadist terrorist in a foreign country there may have been a case. He was none of these things.
If Obama felt he was a clear and present danger to America, he could have had his lap dog Holder indict and jail him. I am sure his sycophants in the media would have backed him.
It is still funny though. I never noticed the arm.
Probably over ten years ago I had a visit from an FBI agent who was trying to find the Unibomber. They had a clue about somebody with a last name starting with R so they interviewed us. Spoke to me and my husband separately, asked me if there was anybody out to get us. I said I didn’t think so but at one point we’d had harassing phone calls so we had put a tracer on our phone. He asked me when that was and after I struggled to try to remember he told me the exact day. And then he proceeded to tell me a lot of other stuff that I wouldn’t even have been able to remember.
Yes, they have files on us.
I can’t say it any better than that.
Hey, maybe Trotsky fell on that ice axe? You never know.
What have you got BEFORE march 1st?
You have missed a lot of info and misinterpreted what you didn't miss.
The first Reuters report out had his father-in-law saying he knew of no cardiac problems and had the coroner’s office saying he hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year.
It’s the discrepancies that make a person wonder what’s really going on here. Sort of reminds me of the Bin Laden assassination, where they didn’t have their stories coordinated, posed for a fake photo, wouldn’t show photos of the dead Bin Laden, had a positive DNA match before such a test could even be completed, etc. And then they wondered why people didn’t automatically beleive the story. In the end it was probably the credibility of the SEALS that convinced anybody who was convinced, since neither the media nor the government are credible.
With Breitbart we’ll never know for sure because there’s nothing our government can’t simply lie about, and we don’t have anybody honorable like the SEALS involved that we could trust. Which is a very serious problem.
I shill for no one
And on an unrelated topic: I Wang Chung for no man!
What would make it illegal? If targeted assassinations are legal, and only the POTUS can decide which citizens are “enemies”, then what would prevent a POTUS from legally assassinating whoever he wanted?
Or are you saying that targeted assassinations are NOT legal, and that the courts would rule that way if a case was before them?
If they are not legal, what current law forbids them, and what needs to happen to get the court ruling that affirms the illegality of targeted assassinations of US citizens?
Because not all laws are legal.
Maybe because his life wasn't in danger?
And since when do deaths by natural causes such as heart attacks require personal security anyway? Seems like a lot of money to spend on such when one doesn't know when they're going to die........Unless your talking about personal physicians hanging with him rather than security personnel.
You are right on the money - it is the legality of the act.
If legal then there is cover, and also less likely that someone will say it is wrong.
And your comment about the FBI is true, I have a relative who won’t say much about what he does (he has an oath which I respect). But there’s a lot going on.
Then there is the gray area - retired special ops guys etc. Foreign experts, etc..
If the the legality is covered and it is in the interest of national security, well....
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 rat’s nest.
And now he was going to bring down the Commander and Chief - he announced he was going to do it at CPAC. He had done it in the past successfully too - he had a track record of success.
Yup, I’d say he was a national security threat of the highest order.
Arresting him would have just made him more popular, a martyr with a spotlight on the national stage. Better he just goes away and is replaced with confused, ineffective, windbags - like usual. Better for the homeland that way.
What proof? On every thread I’ve seen on this subject I’ve asked anybody to provide any report pre-dating March 1, 2012 where it was said that Breitbart had a heart problem, and so far nobody has come up with anything. What they’ve come up with is people since Breitbart died claiming that he had a heart problem, had a heart attack a year ago, was hospitalized for a heart attack, had a heart attack a month ago, etc. But either those reports are wrong, or else something was screwy when Reuters reported that Breitbart’s father-in-law said he DIDN’T know of any heart condition and the coroner’s office said he hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year.
If it was an assassination I can fully understand why the family wants to say it was natural causes and might even ask friends to make up stories to try to create a pre-existing heart condition. There’s a wife and 4 little kids to protect, and if they did this to Andrew who might they do it to next, if the family did anything to let the public know it was an assassination?
Ultimately we’re never gonna know and we may as well drop the issue, for the sake of the family.
But I do think we need to ask what Null and Void is asking - given what the CIA lawyers are claiming about targeted assassinations and the recent law passed by a majority of the Congress-critters allowing the government to detain “terrorists” based on them being simply “belligerent” (without any definition for what constitutes belligerence), what would protect any one of us - Breitbart included - from being called a terrorist by Obama, based on what he calls “belligerence”, and assassinated by a heart-attack-inducing frozen dart that can’t be detected by an autopsy?
That’s the question of this thread, and nobody seems ot be really addressing it.
If targeted assassinations of US citizens (deemed by the POTUS to be “terrorists”) are legal, and if it is legal for the executive branch to make up their own definition of “belligerence” and call somebody a terrorist based on that, then any one of us can be called a terrorist by this illegal POTUS in office right now and be legally assassinated without anybody ever knowing or having recourse.
In an era of universal deceit, the truth is a revolutionary act (George Orwell)
To cower in silence is no longer an option.
His life wasn’t in danger, really?
Wow, you are one informed poster -
seriously, you should take a little time and
do some background work and come back and let
us know that he was not in any danger -
Scaring people would only be “treason” using your argument if the liberties claimed to be lost really are a “phantom”.
In this case we’ve got an American citizen killed by the US government without due process - based simply on the POTUS’ opinion that the person killed was a terrorist. You tell me what that is if not a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process for US citizens.
And we’ve got a law passed by Congress and signed by the usurper in the White House which allows the same treatment for those who are “belligerent” (an undefined term so it can be defined however the POTUS wants to define it) as for those giving actual material aid to terrorists. That treatment includes indefinite detainment without the due process of knowing the accusation against you, having a lawyer, going to trial, etc. The POTUS can make up an arbitrary definition for “belligerence”, on the basis of that definition label any one of us “belligerent” and thus a terrorist, and give the kill order. Furthermore, he can have the assassination be done by the military using whatever method he wants - including undetectable assassination methods so nobody even knows that he gave an assassination order.
These are NOT “phantoms of lost liberty”. These are right now, right here violations of our Constitution and laws.
So why did his father-in-law say he knew of no heart problems, and why did the coroner’s office say he hadn’t seen a doctor for over a year? You don’t have a week-long stay in the hospital following a heart attack a year ago without your father-in-law knowing and without seeing a doctor for over a year.
It’s the discrepancies that raise the questions.
And the timing. As was mentioned here, if there were medical issues Breitbart’s enemies would have known that. Heck, the government knows what’s in MY e-mails; they sure as heck know what’s in Breitbart’s. If he had a heart condition his enemies would have simply known to use that particular form of assassination rather than something that would cause a different medical crisis.
Ultimately we’re never gonna know for sure. But we may as well acknowledge that there are discrepancies in the claims and it looks fishy.
And we have a duty to address null and void’s basic question: Is it currently legal for the POTUS to assassinate somebody he views as “belligerent”, which could be defined by him as simply being a danger to his administration?
Does the law in any way prohibit the POTUS from defining “belligerent” or “terrorist” as “somebody who threatens my administration”? If so, show me where the law prohibits the POTUS from using that definition?
So you're saying that the L.A. County government murdered Breitbart?
Not even close, try again.
Still around and trying to lay low.
Tell you what, when the autopsy report shows that he died of a heart attack and nothing else, come back and give us an apology, ok?
That's not likely to happen tho because TF'ers (Tin Foil hat wearers) like you will never admit you're wrong, everything is a cover-up regardless of all the overwhelming evidence. Don't worry, despite what you may believe,the world is not out to get you.........LOL!
That's why I wrote Gangster Government and Sakharov's Immunity. http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm I am taking my stand here.
Very mature response, with a cartoon to make a point.
Never wore tin foil in my life, aren’t now and have no plans to in the future. Reality is ugly enough without adding nonsense to it.
Since you knew Andrew so well, knew his life and his story, his family, friends and associates, I’m guessing you will continue to inform us on his passing. Keep up the good work!
And BTW, this is also why they would choose a loner, expected schizophrenic, or druggie to do mind-control type experiments on for military weapons/technology development including assassination capabilities, which - if I understand correctly - is one of the things done at the military base that Jared Laughner applied to and was rejected from because he failed the drug test... Laughner failed in his alleged attempt to assassinate Gabby Giffords but managed to kill Judge John Roll within 8 seconds with a hit to his aorta. There were a lot of claims made by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others including Homeland Security that contradicted the facts that came out later...
It’s all stuff that makes a person go Hmmm... And it’s all stuff we’ll never be able to prove one way or the other. It’s designed to be that way. Covert assassinations are designed to have a plausible natural explanation, and only “conspiracy theorists” would ever suggest it was an assassination, which could never be proven.
The founders knew that the only way to get honest, decent work out of government is by limiting it and making it accountable.
Regarding government limitations - the Obama regime has totally dismantled all the limits on the executive office, Constitution, rules, laws - anything that would stop them from doing whatever they darn well please.
Regarding accountability - regulatory power is in the hands of unaccountable czars. Law enforcement is in the hands of Eric Holder. Media is in the hands of George Soros. Elections are in the hands of ACORN, etc. and the Obama-supporting company that programs the elections tabulation for about half of the states right now. The DOJ is working to pass a rule making it legal for them to claim records don’t exist when they actually do - but it wouldn’t matter what the law says because the government breaks the laws quite regularly - including subpoenas, etc - with impunity.
As Travis McGee has said, covertly assassinating Breitbart would be piddles to the Obama regime, since they’ve already killed hundreds of people by forcing US gun traders to sell untrackable guns to the drug cartels that have been terrorizing our southern border. They’re not too worried about it though because the Congressional investigation can be put to a stop simply by ignoring subpoenas - since the original tactic of simply committing perjury on the stand wasn’t working out so well...
The war on terrorism has turned things around, because in order to confront the terrorists our government has to be able to do things covertly - which is fine if you have an honest government. The problem is that human nature says that if there’s no way for the public to hold someone accountable for covert actions, those people will NEVER end up being honest. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think one of the things we need to learn is that the way for government to fight terrorism is by closing our borders to illegals and getting rid of the corruption within government that terrorists can exploit to get access they shouldn’t have. If the government was doing those things, the vigilance of the people would go a long way toward detecting terrorists among us.
I agree. Targeted assassinations of US citizens are a violation of the 14th Amendment, as is a law allowing indefinite detainment of US citizens without any kind of due process.
And whether it is illegal or not, it is absolutely crazy to define as a terrorist somebody who is “belligerent”, without defining “belligerence” in any way. It’s also crazy to allow that determination to be made by any one person, with no means for scrutiny.
So what’s the solution?
Anyone see the Castle TV show where a guy could cause wars by just one assassination? One low level person could start a chain reaction that could effect the fate of a nation of the world. Breitbard was one of the little links that held the Conservative movement together—Getting rid of him might be the one thing that would secure Obama’s election for 4 more glorious years as he transforms America into the Worker’s Paradise. We have motive—but do we have means?
Watch your back - no walks alone in the neighborhood.
“We have motivebut do we have means?”
Breitbart was not Assassinated!
He worked himself to death!
Stop making FR members look like fools!
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.