Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI director: Have to check whether targeted killing rule is outside US only.
Fox News ^ | March 07, 2012 | | Catherine Herridge

Posted on 03/08/2012 2:53:22 AM PST by carriage_hill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
Uh oh, here we go. Round-ups, murder, detention, camps.
1 posted on 03/08/2012 2:53:29 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Nacht und Nebel

or, in English, "Breibarted"

2 posted on 03/08/2012 2:57:30 AM PST by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Things move ever faster as your country circles the drain.


3 posted on 03/08/2012 2:58:14 AM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Our Country had been on a long slow slide into Hell. Then Barack Obama was elected. Now the slow slide, is a free fall!


4 posted on 03/08/2012 3:01:47 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

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.

************************************

HOLY F*&%^^* ^&%$# these *&^%$(*&^ &^%$$$^!!

I thought for sure this was one of those “semi-satire” threads. Unbelievable! (Well, sadly, not really I guess.)

Although I guess even if it was found to be illegal to kill someone on U.S. soil, they could just send a SWAT team on a no-knock raid to the “wrong” address.


5 posted on 03/08/2012 3:03:48 AM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

targeted killing without trial = legal, OK
(if a democrat is president)

nonlethal waterboarding = illegal, torture


6 posted on 03/08/2012 3:08:58 AM PST by silverleaf (Funny how all the people who are for abortion are already born)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

“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
*********************
The HEAD of the FBI doesn’t know this?! Who and what the L are we payin’ to run this stuff. Are they THAT inept?

We are in such deep chit...


7 posted on 03/08/2012 3:12:02 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

NDAA. . .3 Reps, 3 Dems and 1 Ind. voted against it. The “us” vs “them” isn’t a Rep vs Dem situation but it’s been a great distraction while the Devil himself does his handiwork. Variations in rhetoric allow different people to get in power, there’s no legit honorable values behind any of the b.s..


8 posted on 03/08/2012 3:12:09 AM PST by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; JimSEA; silverleaf

We’re “circling the drain” allright, but it’s OK - the RATS are in charge, so it’s legal.


9 posted on 03/08/2012 3:13:28 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.”

He already knows that contorted answer, which Holder (THUG-NY) will give: YES.


10 posted on 03/08/2012 3:15:19 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Satire? I had to re-read it 2x, to make sure it wasn’t, but since it was on Fox News’ site, I knew that TSHTF is now coming sooner than I’d thought possible. Their groundwork for prosecution/persecution of Americans at home, is almost in place. It’s gonna get “bumpy”, now.


11 posted on 03/08/2012 3:21:59 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

It’s gonna get real “bumpy” from here on in, S A.


12 posted on 03/08/2012 3:23:23 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Darn good thing the only one who cn exercise the death penalty without traditional due process is the guy who wants to punish his enemies..


13 posted on 03/08/2012 3:25:27 AM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Congress better sack-up, grow a pair and defeat this, somehow.


14 posted on 03/08/2012 3:25:29 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

The wolf is inside the hen house, and the feathers are about to turn red.


15 posted on 03/08/2012 3:28:22 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

He knows exactly; he just wants someone else to say it.


16 posted on 03/08/2012 3:30:07 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Congress better sack-up, grow a pair and defeat this, somehow.

Congress, he!!, if they start shooting at innocent citizens, the people had better danged well start shooting back!

17 posted on 03/08/2012 3:32:11 AM PST by meyer (Fluke - the new "F" word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: meyer

They’re already doing it; this just means it’s *legal & protected* now, and probably immune to wrongful-death lawsuits. You’re right about our “response” to it, BTW...


18 posted on 03/08/2012 3:36:32 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Welcome to Free Republic!


19 posted on 03/08/2012 3:36:57 AM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Thank you! Nice to be aboard.


20 posted on 03/08/2012 3:38:28 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

this youtube belongs here too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84


21 posted on 03/08/2012 3:56:24 AM PST by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

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.


22 posted on 03/08/2012 3:58:57 AM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

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.


23 posted on 03/08/2012 4:23:30 AM PST by 6SJ7 (Meh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

What’s new? The BATF has been executing people without trial for decades.


24 posted on 03/08/2012 4:28:59 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7

This is a step beyond a Star Chamber. Sheesh! What unconstitutional criminals.


25 posted on 03/08/2012 4:30:54 AM PST by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

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)


26 posted on 03/08/2012 4:36:12 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

No problem or change, as far as they’re concerned. They just won’t get sued as often. It’ll be *legal*.


27 posted on 03/08/2012 4:38:36 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7

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.


28 posted on 03/08/2012 4:40:12 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Andrew Breitbart?


29 posted on 03/08/2012 4:53:38 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Only time will tell if that is the story, if at all.


30 posted on 03/08/2012 5:06:28 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SF_Redux

They’re talking “international basis” there, not US soil... (I watched the first half only).


31 posted on 03/08/2012 5:10:59 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Irenic
The HEAD of the FBI doesn’t know this?! Who and what the L are we payin’ to run this stuff. Are they THAT inept?

He knows the answer, but he wants Holder to take the heat for it, not him.
32 posted on 03/08/2012 5:38:30 AM PST by crosshairs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Breitbart......


33 posted on 03/08/2012 5:53:45 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

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


34 posted on 03/08/2012 5:56:06 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler
We’ve all seen the movie Bonnie & Clyde (or if you haven’t, you ought to). Wasn’t that a targeted killing?

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.

35 posted on 03/08/2012 5:59:22 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

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.


36 posted on 03/08/2012 6:04:12 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

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.


37 posted on 03/08/2012 6:10:26 AM PST by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

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?


38 posted on 03/08/2012 6:14:23 AM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Well, now we know why Obama agreed to extend Mueller’s term in office even though he came in under Bush.


39 posted on 03/08/2012 6:54:07 AM PST by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly; Travis McGee; Lurker

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...


40 posted on 03/08/2012 7:11:10 AM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

I posted to point out the casual dismiss they have been using of the Constitution


41 posted on 03/08/2012 7:19:02 AM PST by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

I’m thinking so, too, but we’ll have to wait for the “official findings” BS, won’t we?


42 posted on 03/08/2012 7:38:24 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I will, T. BTW, I have your signed books and have read/re-read 2x: awesome, sir.


43 posted on 03/08/2012 7:40:14 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

That’s what it appears to be. US Citizen-Patriots just get killed; no charges, trial etc.


44 posted on 03/08/2012 7:42:16 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

yup for what they will be worth...


45 posted on 03/08/2012 8:10:30 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

You can be sure it’ll be a very *sanitized* report we’ll finally get.


46 posted on 03/08/2012 8:34:10 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

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.


47 posted on 03/08/2012 8:41:39 AM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
There are a few things about this targeted killing that are troublesome.

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.

48 posted on 03/08/2012 8:51:42 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

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.


49 posted on 03/08/2012 9:33:06 AM PST by carriage_hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
I don't know about Mueller....just like I wasn't sure about Freech back in the toon years....

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....

50 posted on 03/08/2012 2:44:42 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson