Posted on 03/08/2012 2:53:22 AM PST by Carriage Hill
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder's "three criteria" for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency's budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.
"I have to go back. Uh, I'm not certain whether that was addressed or not," Mueller said when asked by Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting
Yoder followed up asking whether "from a historical perspective," the federal government has "the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas."
"I'm going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice," Mueller replied.
Indeed, Holder's Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open. While Holder speaks of Americans who lead al Qaeda overseas, the implications of the speech seem broad.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Alright, I’m ready to get flamed. We’ve all seen the movie Bonnie & Clyde (or if you haven’t, you ought to). Wasn’t that a targeted killing? The end, their end, is what I’m talking about. Would you really make that illegal? And for those who don’t know, some people at the time did think it was murder.
Is it really wrong under any circumstances? Remember, the next Republican President is gonna have to live with whatever rules we make now. One of the advantages of having Democrat Presidents from time to time is that they’re allowed to get away with things that Republicans aren’t. Sets a precedent.
No charges.
No trial.
No public review.
You just end up assassinated.
Somehow, I don’t think this is the system the founders had in mind.
What’s new? The BATF has been executing people without trial for decades.
This is a step beyond a Star Chamber. Sheesh! What unconstitutional criminals.
I’m not sure the corrupt DOJ will be “selective” with this power; they’ll use it on everyone and anyone they deem to be “opposed” to Obummer. THAT’S the big problem. (Putting on my Nomex racing suit, too)
No problem or change, as far as they’re concerned. They just won’t get sued as often. It’ll be *legal*.
Nope, it isn’t. But then, they didn’t have Obummer & Co to deal with. Someone like him was eventually going to come along; too bad it’s now, but we have to deal with it and rid the Nation of him and his criminal minions, IMO.
Andrew Breitbart?
Only time will tell if that is the story, if at all.
They’re talking “international basis” there, not US soil... (I watched the first half only).
Breitbart......
Obama and Holder already crossed the mass-murder Rubicon with Operation Fast and Furious.
Killing “enemies of the regime” in the USA would not make mke them break a sweat.
Please read this, save it, and share it:
“Gangster Government, And Sakharov’s Immunity”
http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm
They resisted an arrest where there were duly constituted Warrants. All B&C had to do was throw up their hands. And that was a movie, dude.
Bonnie and Clyde had looted an arsenal and were equipped with full-auto 30-06 BARs, and they used them often. They were driving the monster muscle cars of the day, Ford V-8s. The police had no radios to coordinate cordons, or planes or helos above to follow B&C.
So when they had a when and a where, yes, they set up a roadside ambush. But keep in mind, B&C were already wanted for many murders, and it was known they would go down guns-blazing, and their BARs and cars topped anything the police had.
To try to talk them into surrenduring would have been a joke. To try to peacefully arrest them would have resulted in a bloodpath, with BARs blazing.
It was an exceptional situation, more so in the 1930s, when law enforcement capabilities were so much more primitive.
Bonnie and Clyde committed the real crimes of robbery, kidnapping and murder. They were “assassinated”, if you will, by a posse of four Texas officers and two Louisiana officers - not Federal officers.
A memo released by the Dept of Homeland Security included the phrase:
“Rightwing extremism ... can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
This description has been used by DHS to help define “terrorists”.
Your federal government can classify you as a terrorist by you just not liking them or what they do. They can, apparently, use that to justify killing you while you’re out of the country (or IN the country possibly [probably]). You don’t necessarily have to DO anything, but if you even SAY something (or post it on your Facebook page) you can be targeted by the government and classified a terrorist. I don’t see any comparison here with the death of B&C.
“Is it really wrong under any circumstance?” Yes - it’s wrong under ANY circumstance. Because the moment it’s allowed, you have ceased to be a country of laws. If the government can selectively deprive someone of their unalienable right to live, without due process, then the Constitution means nothing and you have NO rights.
Not flaming, just commenting.
Lemme get this straight.
Holder and Zer0 demand foreign terrorists be given jury trials in the US but domestic terrorists (Holder determines that status)can be assassinated/murdered without any legal recourse?
Well, now we know why Obama agreed to extend Mueller’s term in office even though he came in under Bush.
First let me say that nobody has to convince me that it was OK for the “laws” to kill Bonnie & Clyde, but I do believe that there is general agreement that the gentlemen responsible shot first, with any attempt at an arrest coming afterwards. But that’s OK by me because I agree with Travis McGee that it was an “exceptional situation.” And while the two were wanted for various crimes, including murder, I would remind all that there were no trials or convictions.
But my point is that “exceptional situations” are all too possible in the future. Inevitable, I suspect, given the nature of our enemies.
Now there are supposed to be safeguards in place to prevent abuse of these new rules. The “three criteria” which Holder talks about. The first two of these are, from the article....
“...the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible........”
OK, that seems to me to pretty much cover Bonnie & Clyde right there if you replace “United States” with people in general. Does it worry me that this could be abused? Yes. On the other hand, I kinda suspect that the police sometimes abused their authority back in the 1930s too.
Can you not imagine a situation similar to B & C involving terrorists? How about this....a pilot with a history of anti-government (remember this could be a “militia” guy or it could be some eco-extremist) activities is seen loading explosives aboard an airplane. He then takes off and flies in the direction of New York or Chicago or name your favorite city. He doesn’t respond to radio traffic. Would we not have the right to take this guy out?
Remember that we now know that Cheney gave an order to shoot down Flight 93. Should this have been illegal?
And please, rather than poke holes in my example, deal with the general idea. If I fail in giving an airtight example it is probably because I lack the imagination or knowledge, not because no such circumstance is possible...
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.