I blogged first about killing al-Awlaki here and I revisted targeted killing here. Today I am addressing Attorney General Holder's legal defense of targeted killing of U.S. citizens. Holder spoke on March 5, 2012 at Northwestern University School of Law.
First, Holder insisted that we are a nation at war. Ok, which nation living in the U.S. is at war? If he meant we are a country at war I want to know what I missed, was war ever declared? We may be a country involved in high levels of military activity for a prolonged period of time, but we have not been a country at war in several decades.
Second, Holder defends invasion of privacy through surveillance and intelligence gathering aimed at U.S. citizens by linking this surveillance to the legal surveillance of foreign nationals that is controlled through U.S. law and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. How many of you realized this court even existed?
Third, Holder says that the courts are not the only option for the prosecution of terrorists. Holder further stated that "Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions." Wow, and all this time I thought the executive did not make the law, but had to operate under the law and that courts were charged with prosecution of individuals under the law. Man, I guess I need to go back and reread the U.S. Constitution and all of the letters and journals and diaries of those who wrote the document.
Finally, we have the center piece of Holder's defense of targeted killing of U.S. citizens. "Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in following circumstances: First, 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; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Oh my, so if it is hard to capture someone we should just kill them. Alright law enforcement officers everywhere, listen up, the Attorney General said it is ok, shoot the criminal because it might be hard to capture the criminal. My two cents, the Attorney General's logic is based on faulty reasoning and very poor understanding of the U.S. Constitution. "Capture is not feasible," wow, what a defense of killing a U.S. citizen without due process. "Applicable law of war principles," these are obviously more important in dealing with U.S. citizens than the U.S. Constitution, which is the last time I checked, the supreme law of this country,.
Ok. So, I am done with this topic. I am disgusted with the current administration and for reasons I cannot even fathom, I am apparently in line with the position of the ACLU on this issue.
First, Holder insisted that we are a nation at war. Ok, which nation living in the U.S. is at war? If he meant we are a country at war I want to know what I missed, was war ever declared? We may be a country involved in high levels of military activity for a prolonged period of time, but we have not been a country at war in several decades.
Second, Holder defends invasion of privacy through surveillance and intelligence gathering aimed at U.S. citizens by linking this surveillance to the legal surveillance of foreign nationals that is controlled through U.S. law and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. How many of you realized this court even existed?
Third, Holder says that the courts are not the only option for the prosecution of terrorists. Holder further stated that "Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions." Wow, and all this time I thought the executive did not make the law, but had to operate under the law and that courts were charged with prosecution of individuals under the law. Man, I guess I need to go back and reread the U.S. Constitution and all of the letters and journals and diaries of those who wrote the document.
Finally, we have the center piece of Holder's defense of targeted killing of U.S. citizens. "Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in following circumstances: First, 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; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Oh my, so if it is hard to capture someone we should just kill them. Alright law enforcement officers everywhere, listen up, the Attorney General said it is ok, shoot the criminal because it might be hard to capture the criminal. My two cents, the Attorney General's logic is based on faulty reasoning and very poor understanding of the U.S. Constitution. "Capture is not feasible," wow, what a defense of killing a U.S. citizen without due process. "Applicable law of war principles," these are obviously more important in dealing with U.S. citizens than the U.S. Constitution, which is the last time I checked, the supreme law of this country,.
Ok. So, I am done with this topic. I am disgusted with the current administration and for reasons I cannot even fathom, I am apparently in line with the position of the ACLU on this issue.
