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
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.
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.