Skip to comments.FBI director: Have to check whether targeted killing rule is outside US only.
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 ...
I posted to point out the casual dismiss they have been using of the Constitution
I’m thinking so, too, but we’ll have to wait for the “official findings” BS, won’t we?
I will, T. BTW, I have your signed books and have read/re-read 2x: awesome, sir.
That’s what it appears to be. US Citizen-Patriots just get killed; no charges, trial etc.
yup for what they will be worth...
You can be sure it’ll be a very *sanitized* report we’ll finally get.
There are a few things about this targeted killing that are troublesome. First, as I read Holder’s three points, it is not necessary that the target actually commits a crime. In the Fort Hood example, Al Awaki (sp?) arguably gave sermons that inspired the shooter. Think how the DOJ could use this definition combined with an assertion that it’s unlikely that the individual be captured to assassinate most any conservative poster who advocates some type of immediate government change (throw the bum out). It’s a far different criteria the resisting a lawful arrest, resisting officers serving a lawful search warrant. Now I’m talking about the legal standard not the abuses that frequently happen.
IMO this gives a free pass for purely political assassinations.
Most troubling is that it is blatantly against the spirit and words of the Constitution. There are no exceptions in the due process clause for guys who go jihadist. Firefight? Waste them. Exigent circumstance? Two to center mass.
But planned assasinations of "terrorists" who are American citizens based on one man's approval? I think not.
Even trying them in absentia would at least be some sort of dure process if they refuse extradition.
I mean Obama killed a 16 year old American citizen, al Awaki's son, with a drone. He was wanted for nothing.
Scary, J. Guilt-by-inference/association is what they’re after. I can just see the widespread use of this and the bloody results, now.
but Mueller, Freech, the top generals and admirials of this country: when the country needed men to step up and show character, they rested on their laurels and their money and pensions....
but muddy the waters with wishy washing sliding slope lanquage....
we all know right from wrong...
Personally, I don’t trust any of them with protecting this country or its citizens.