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
He may have died naturally BUT it is highly doubtful for two reasons:
1) The natural causes determination came out ridiculously fast.
2) All celebrity autopsies are complete and reported within 24 hours. The report is either the final determination or that toxicology reports have to come back before determination.
They've learned a lot since Vince Foster, just not enough.
Much as I would love to see such a conspiracy exposed, Andrew's heart was a ticking time bomb.
And it detonated.
Exactly. This is the most likely cause of death.
I have never heard reference to security details for the Marxist mouthpieces bent on our destruction.
Ever heard of ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO and other union thugs/goons?
Obama planned for this contingency long ago. His supporters run the medical examiner’s office - the autopsy will be a fraud. The conspiracy is vast and deep. /tinfoil hat=off>
“He was not assassinated and any talk of that does a disservice to him and his adversaries.”
It lowers and corsens the discussion. It is akin to calling your adversary a Nazi. It is also pure conjecture.
The mind of the progressive operates like a ship without an anchor. Moral and metaphysical relativism.
Committing an error which is both moral and intellectual, the progressive has preferred to look away from his comprehension of the existence of transcendent rules.
This is why it doesn’t matter that while in certain respects the current administration has not upheld its oath to the U.S. Constitution, yet it can pretend agreement with it in others.
I see by your sign up that you weren't here during Clinton. Your head would have exploded.
The reality is that we are being taken over by rich and powerful marxists (like Soros). And you want to pretend that they don't play rough. Or have access to things like this. You'd be wrong.
“It lowers and corsens the discussion. It is akin to calling your adversary a Nazi. It is also pure conjecture.”
OK - That’s interesting. What is the discussion that’s being corsened? AB is dead. What discussion should we be having? I always find this kind of argument fascinating. Do you remember Vince Foster? There certainly were questions surrounding his death. Why would his friends, loved ones, and admirers be content with a park ranger’s report of cause of death? If my loved one died unexpectedly, I’d want to know every single thing I could about it. Why was that not the case for VF? Same here. If there’s anything amiss in AB’s death, why should we not want to know?
It’s akin to calling our opponents nazis? Seriously? Again, how?
RIP. But it is a bit odd.
Was Breitbart LEGALLY Assassinated?"Conspiracy theories are the ..." see tag line ...
vanity | 3/4/12 | null and void
Gee, could it have been that his wife and family released a statement that indicated 'natural causes'?
Do you really think that the WH had him killed and then contacted the media, instructing them to say 'natural causes'? Sheesh.
So, natural causes then.
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.