Anybody want to define what a "terror group" is? That would be anybody who disagrees with Obama (or Holder?) or whoever is in power in the US? Does that include the government's right to use "drones" to "take out" the revolutionaries in the US who are defending their property against government take over?

Just Curious is all!?

How is this any different then a police officer shooting an armed assailant pointing a gun at them?

If they extended it to "US soil" I'd be a bit more nervous, but at the same time, this is a breach of Constitutional Law. Perhaps the flaw is that the US does not revoke the privilege of being a citizen for crimes and criminal acts, which it should. Being a citizen of the United States is indeed a privilege, one that I do not take lightly.

Did our President receive the Nobel Peace prize because he was bringing a new wave of brotherhood to the world?

This all started with the Patriot act. All of these laws that are bringing us closer to a dictatorship are all authored by the same people that wrote that law. They get away with it because more then half the country has been programmed to be scared crapless about Muslims and accept any and all laws "protecting" us from Muslim terrorists.

The only way to fix this issue is to vote out everyone from Congress and replace them with level headed and rational legislators.

The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life" without due process of law. But that due process, Holder said, doesn't necessarily come from a court.

Oh great, another issue to be presented to the SCOTUS. Wait a minute, the DOJ indicates the "courts" are not needed in his fantasy World.

How is Mr. Obama going to defend the DOJ, and other administration officials, actions during his continuing Presidential campaign.

Morlack, have you ever served in the US military?

Holder:
US can legally kill Americans in terror groups

Absolutely - they for fitted the right to be an American when they attack America and it's constitution. Best to my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution to protect scum bags that identify themselves as traitors!

What concerns me most about the paranoia created by endless wars is that in 15 years we have gone from impeaching a President for getting a BJ to allowing a Congress and President to strip our rights out of the Constitution.

And while people are willing to march on Washington to stop them from interfering with the internet, we allow a President to demand that he have the authority to detain Americans, or anyone else in the world for that matter, indefinitely. If it weren't for the paranoia, I believe both Congress and the President would be up on charges of "abuse of authority" and "perjury of oath", both high crimes.

I have to wonder, in the future, what will be considered terroristic and how it will be defined. If it will be defined as my voicing an opinion against my government, Have I not lost my right to free speech? If I have lost my right to free speech, have I not lost my right to protest illegal search and seizure? If I have lost my right to free speech, have I not lost my right to practice my religion of choice? All of these rights are contingent upon having the right to due process, and I have serious concerns that people in this country simply don't care about what they are losing.

Ummm, so if for some odd reason, say a computer glitch on the no-fly lists, your name comes up on a terrorist watch list, you gonna defend them killing you, since, as you seem to believe, you're an enemy of the state, according to them. Dear God, how naive can you be?

You are forgetting that if an American raises arms against the US and its citizens with the intent to kill they forfeit their rights as American citizens, it is a traitor's fate.

How is this any different then a police officer shooting an armed assailant pointing a gun at them?

If someone's been caught plotting a murder do the police go straight to shooting him as soon as they get the chance? What if the police get their information wrong?

All it takes is one mistaken identity for this idea to go tits up.

Paxton Fetel

So, why do we give rights to people who clearly commit murder? Aren't they violating the rights of other Americans and thereby America?

So just because someone is an American, but in a terror training camp, we don't target them? Could you be any more of a leftie.

I think we should just give all those terrorists a big kiss, and a box of chocolate. (sarcasm)

I do not believe seeing the terrorists get their day in court has ever been a priority for any level of the United States and in fact, they can simply make you disappear for life should they choose to do so without ever seeing a courtroom. The federal courts support this action and have for the past decade so this isn't about constitutional rights anymore. This is about the traitors family trying to sue the government for doing the right thing and taking the traitor out period. That he is an american Al Quaida terrorist makes him even more deadly than most other Al Quaida members.

You're forgetting the definition of a 'terrorist' and who can be deemed a 'terrorist.' If you look at the Homeland Security watch list, people in OWS, the Teaparty, people who hoard food, ammo or anything in general, returning Iraq vets, anyone, can be deemed a terrorist. With this administration, they are the final judges, jury and executioner. You alright with that? Really? Think you can't be accused of terrorism under a rather broad and vague series of definitions? Nazi germany didn't start out as a totalitarian state. Gradually, over time, more and more freedoms were removed, all in the name of making the world a better place. Think the Jews believed that their government would do what it did? Not at first, but over time, with more and more laws and administrations taking away more and more rights and freedoms, the Jews learned how it could happen.

Must be election time...

Paxton Fetel

Well then i guess that makes every american a traitor then since that's what happened against the oppressive english monarchy. Now those men are known as the fathers of our country. And if they were all to stand up now from their graves. They'd be starting another war on our current government. Often times the only difference between traitors an hero's is who wins.

<b>The most chilling part of this is the poll, which indicates 62% of respondents agree that America should be allowed to assassinate Americans without due process.

What really was the point of the Constitution then? The ludicrous part is that Obama "promised" not to use it on American soil.

How would anyone know?</b>

"Absolutely - they for fitted the right to be an American when they attack America and it's constitution. Best to my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution to protect scum bags that identify themselves as traitors!" <-- So then any one who commits any crime should be considered a traitor right? If I say Obama is wrong, does that now make me a traitor to the US since I am disagreeing with his views? According to Holder and you, I am.

Simply amazing how far this once great country has fallen in the past 11 yrs. Isn't it ironic, we are becoming more like the Chinese every day, while the chinese are starting to become more like the US was pre Patriot Act. Oh wait, I better not hit submit on this post, because I may get placed ona no fly list and labeled a terrorist and allowed to board a plane out of the country then be assassinated because I am no longer on US Soil.

Know what I find ironic in all of this? If George Bush did this, the Main stream media be up in arms over it, but because its the MSM's darling in the White House, they are all ok with this.

They don't just go around killing the people on the watch lists. They do kill the people who are trying to attack the country or representatives of the country.

How is this any different then a police officer shooting an armed assailant pointing a gun at them?

No charges.

No warrant signed by a judge.

No impartial judge or jury to review evidence.

No trial by peers.

No innocence until proven guilty.

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” —James Madison

Morlack, you are not describing a "military dictatorship." That is where some wannabe general takes over the country with a "military coup." In this particular case, it is simple dictatorship, as our present Commander-in-Chief has never served a day in his life in the armed forces of this nation. And just to let you know, this title is stricly because our Constitution says the military will be commanded by a civilian.

What worries me is this lawyer, supposedly the senior legal representative for this nation, coming up with this idea, (and not describing it very well,) also being very anti-death penalty. At the same time, our soldiers, on the ground, facing those enemies, and our police officers, defending the citizens in their districts, don't have the luxury he is giving the President. They are not even allowed to defend themselves, until actually fired upon by an active enemy, and they must use all caution to ensure no non-combatants are harmed in any way, shape, or form, else they are liable to be prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law."

We can do it

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you're making up what you say. If their only exposure to American News is Fox then how in the world are they able to spout so many liberal talking points?

Obviously if an American citizen has taken up arms with a terror group that is known to be plotting against US citizens they should be taken out. However this is not a decision Holder is competent or honest enough to make. Holder has one scary past and people should read about his involvement with Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Holder has as much blood on his hands as any terrorist.

Holder's already shown that his departments can use foreign drug cartels to murder US citizens (ala fast and furious). Hasn't seemed to slow him down much.

Really, we can do it? We're supposed to take that seriously? Which clients asked you why is America so prejudiced? France, where it's illegal to wear a Muslim head covering or any other religious symbol? How about India where the caste system still deprives millions of basic rights? Or any Muslim country where, to declare to be a Christian, is a death sentence? And, what, pray tell does your second point even mean? Syntactically and grammatically, it doesn't even make sense so I'm guessing your clients are those learning English as a second language. Number three, seriously? There are legitimate, even loud debates, but name one politician who has called Health Care the devil. Number 4, you are kidding me, enough said. Number 5, I'm guessing your Chinese clients in a society which legislates how many children a family can have asked you that or better yet, where they define birth control as leaving female infants to die.

I'm thinking it's not FOX News's fault that you look like an idiotic American.

johnr123....I thought the very same thing re "we can do it's" comment above. It seems that Fox news has slowly taken over W Bush as the excuse de jour for everything wrong in America. Give me a break already.

ps....@Steven Rennie, well said my friend!!

as if the government doesn't already do what they want... if they want you dead, you're dead. at the worst (for them) they'll have to leave an incriminating trail to make you look guilty- I'm sure they've done it plenty.

case in point: Waco Texas

@We can do it

I'm going to call BS on your post. You don't travel the world for work, you probably never been outside the USA other then on vacation. Why don't you stop spreading your left BS and trying to make people look bad. I on the other hand do travel the world for work, so does my father, and my sister. Guess what you can find FOX news, CNN but the major media overseas is usually BBC, Deutsche Welle. So I like to know where you supposedly travel to, that all you get is FOX news.

You travel alot in communist dictatorships? Seems kinda like the questions should be more on the side of 'since when does the government get to decide to kill someone without due process?" Since when does the government get to summarily execute someone? Remember how we're supposed to be a 'free' country? A country that doesn't allow the government to drag someone out of bed and summarily shot them in the head because they may be 'an enemy of the state' according to their concepts of enemy?

johnr123-3235782

We can do it

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you're making up what you say. If their only exposure to American News is Fox then how in the world are they able to spout so many liberal talking points?

I am not making this up. What it should show you is just how far right the Republican party, and Fox news, have gone. You guys have gone so far right, that you think every other country is thinkin' librul.

Due process is due process, and should not just be for US Citizens. Think of how upset many people are when US Citizen appear to be denied due process in other countries. It is digusting that the US is moving in the direction, and it is so sad that it is a Democratic president that is supporting it. This country is moving in the direction of the USSR.

Johnr123 : "If their only exposure to American News is Fox then how in the world are they able to spout so many liberal talking points?"

Then they aren't 'liberal' talking points are they ? More like 'rational talking points'.

Guys Guys ...Anwar Al Aw-@!$%#ing-laki is dead.

It's all good. Nothing to see here. Move on.

MrIndia

They already defended the killing of Anwar. I think they are defending a new hit list to be determined. Imagine going to Paris which has a huge Muslim Population. A restaurant is full so you share a table with someone pleasant. They are on the US's "list". Now you are a known conspirator.

You're walking down a street in downtown "wherever", minding your own business....when suddenly you see a dozen or more armed men rush up to a house and bust in the door. You realize that the house is YOUR house, and those armed men are likely looking for YOU....... You wonder "what the hell is going on? why the hell are those armed men busting down MY door?".... You run up to one of the armed men to ask those questions, and more -- and are shot dead as soon as your identity is verified.

Your widow/children/parents/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc read a few days later that "Another terrorist has been pre-emptively killed by Law Enforcement Authorities working closely with an elite unit of the U.S. Army, under orders and supervision of the FBI, the CIA and the NSA". The news report mentions YOUR name as the identity of the terrorist.

Five years later it is finally revealed that your death was the result of computer glitch, or maybe just "human error", and that you were mistakenly identified as a known terrorist who had a similar name as yours.

Hey, it's not so far-fetched as it seems. This kind of thing has already happened hundreds of times with the infamous "No-fly List".

By this BS explanation the follow up assassination of 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki who was not accused of terrorism or leading Al Qaeda has to be illegal and as such an impeachable offense. Holder and Obama should be immediately jailed.

Since when does the government get to summarily execute someone? Remember how we're supposed to be a 'free' country? A country that doesn't allow the government to drag someone out of bed and summarily shot them in the head because they may be 'an enemy of the state' according to their concepts of enemy?~mygirl

Since the beggining of the United States! We didn't give the people of Hiroshinma due process, we didn't give the people of Dresden due process when fire bombing a target of no military value, the Vietnamese villagers at Mai Lia......lets face it we do what we want when we want and then write history books to reflect us in a positive light. I would have thought the conservatives would be happy gettin rid of them tar mooslims. I guess there is no pleasing some people.

I guess Awlaki should not have had his son in training with him at the time then should he? Cry me a river but I'm glad they finally got the american traitors.

marklepew Mike-424215

So, perhaps you are fine being next?

Hello Folks, as you can see the Democrats and Republicans have turned into a two headed one party system who have equally violated our Bill of Rights. There is no difference, it just allows you to pick a side and the powers that be let you fight and weaken each other while they corral you.

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act and National Defense and Authorization Act! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! What's to keep them from arming them? You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security” etc…!

Now they can kill you if they label you a terrorist. Who's doing the labeling, the same group of yahoos who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

If you label yourself as a Republican or a Democrat the joke is on you. Now they have you right where they want you, in fear, divided, and distracted while they pull your rights right out form under you.

So keep on ridiculing and fighting with each other even though we are all the same and all need the same things to survive. This includes all races, religions and people.

Or you can try to love and respect each other and work for a common group, humanity!

It's amazing how little it takes to get the anti-Obama crowd riled. Some of you think this is Obamas' idea? Every single American citizen that has served in the U.S. Military took an oath to defend the Constitution, and the Country against all enemies both foreign and domestic. That means regardless of who they are and where they reside. I took my first "Oath of enlistment" on July 2 1980, and I don't remember Obama being the president then. The sad fact is that if ANYONE else was the P.O.T.U.S. right now there wouldn't be one word of protest about this, and it just shows how anything that looks remotely controversial will be blamed on Obama.

Joe Veteran

You are mistaken. The last Republican debate in Florida, all but Ron Paul said that the President should have that authority. They piss me off, and scare me just as much.

This is an American issue, not a partisan one.

So, perhaps you are fine being next?

I'm not over in a foreign country helping a foreign terrorist group to find ways of coming back to this country and killing and maiming people so really, your point is moot and they did the right thing.

The same people that spout the rhetoric against are the same people that would condemn the President if an American born terrorist actually carried out a terrorist attack. These people are not capable of critical thinking.

Mike-424215

No my point is not moot. How close are your friends? How many people have you pissed off? 100 people on here could turn you in for making terroristic comments. This is a witch hunt. And it is not isolated to overseas, unless you haven't read NDAA

This President is working with the military and intelligence agencies. He isn't over riding them or firing them if they don't agree with him or do as he demands such as the previous administration did. He is now letting the military fight and use the technologies they have and are perfecting which as they are proving, are more accurate and deadly and get better results without putting foot soldiers in harms way. The military is advancing and we are now witnessing the results.

In not a single post have I ever sympathized with the enemy. Unlike what I am and have been watching the american traitors do that have sympathized with Bin Ladin, Gaddafi, this traitor, Awlaki, and now the terrorist leader in Syria.

Nobody walked into any american home and assassinated anyone for talking with their friends. This Awlaki has made videos as well as spread propaganda and conspired with the Taliban and Al Quaida. I'm not afraid of being bombed out of my chair for an internet post nor for anyone I am around. If they want to know about anyone I talk to, all they have to do is ask.

Just like the Republicans that created and supported the Patriot's Act when I was against it, I am now supporting the republican led and completely party line supported the NDAA. Maybe now that the party is on the other foot, you know how I felt back when the Patriot's Act was created.

Well, I have to ask, has that paranoia gotten us any closer to peace? .I don't think so, all we are doing is giving up more rights. For every supposed terrorist we kill two take their place.

Jungleboogie

<b>The most chilling part of this is the poll, which indicates 62% of respondents agree that America should be allowed to assassinate Americans without due process.

What really was the point of the Constitution then? The ludicrous part is that Obama "promised" not to use it on American soil.

How would anyone know?</b>

I GUESS you wouldnt know..Like when the woman that accused Bush of RAPE, suddenly committed suicide by blowing her head off....

Nevermind the fact that the woman had no mental problems or issues, or that women almost NEVER shoot themselves...nevermind that

Devil, man you are the Devil huh! Holder and Obama should be immediately jailed. Wow what a statement. Man you got me scared already and I'm fearless. Brhaaaaa brhaaaaaa. Listen I really don't want them having power like that, the Constitution is being shredded a Lot here lately.

They have already made statements, that, it needed to be amended because it was out of date. Better be careful people things are not looking good. I'm sure they'll be coming up with something pretty soon to confiscate your weapons. This may not happen, but, don't count it out either!

what is so hilarious is the fact that if someone like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich said that such killings were OK, then the right would be falling all over themselves to say how wonderful it was that they were willing to defend our country

It was not okay when it was proposed by any Administration. There must be due process of the law. Before an American is murdered in the name of any act, whether that be treason or terrorism he must be tried in a cort of law and found to be guilty of treason, sedition, or any other capital act. At the ery least that person must be tried in absentia. To take the life of an American Citizen otherwise is MURDER! By any administration.

Pdug, remember ruby ridge, they deem him a terrorist as well. Kid his wife and kid and after the investigation they deemed the info they recieved were all lies. FBI told that to the people attacking this compound. Would this be ok if were your family?

When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Adams

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety Benjimin Franklin & thomas Jefferson. Hate to say it but, we hare heading into dangerous grounds. mho

Looking at the way some people on the Left, many here on MSNBC, call everyday normal peace loving Christians, Right-wing Fundamentalist Christian Taliban.

Do we really want the Left to define what a 'terrorist' is?

If so, I can see MSNBC leading the charge for Christians to be hunted down and exterminated just like Nazi did to the Jews during WW2.

TRH86

@We can do it

I'm going to call BS on your post. You don't travel the world for work, you probably never been outside the USA other then on vacation. Why don't you stop spreading your left BS and trying to make people look bad. I on the other hand do travel the world for work, so does my father, and my sister. Guess what you can find FOX news, CNN but the major media overseas is usually BBC, Deutsche Welle. So I like to know where you supposedly travel to, that all you get is FOX news.

TRH, I said, FOX is usually the only AMERICAN news station in other countries. You are correct, you often find BBC and sometimes Deutsche and Asian news stations, but FOX is usually the only news station representing America. In my opinion, that is bad marketing for our great country, that is infected by the Tea Party Murdock virus known as FOX news.

That should have been Killed in the 2nd sentence. We either sit and talk or we have our voices heard; if that does any good anymore.

The enemy is all around us and yet we can't see him. He sounds his voice and we say nothing like we don't hear him. He watches us and watch him back and yet do nothing, the enemy at that point is us!

Folks we're our own worst enemy and it's because we fear death, get over it you'll have to die sometime might as well look good when you go!

What good is the constitution if we don't abide it?

What this country is becoming is a covert military dictatorship. The military is calling the shots and whoever is sitting in Congress or the White House serves only as a figurehead. Due process of law [emphasis mine] requires the courts. Letting soldiers take pot shots at civilians and then claiming that the civilians were in a "terror group" because they are no longer able to defend themselves from the slander is contrary to every notion this country pretends to stand for.

Subliminal:

Absolutely - they for fitted the right to be an American when they attack America and it's constitution. Best to my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution to protect scum bags that identify themselves as traitors!

But I don't trust the murderers' word that the target did any such thing. It still needs to be established in a court of law. That's what due process is.

Only a nitwit disagrees with this because their favorite little President didn't happen to say it.

Yes, sorry, it is the way it is. It is the way it has always been. It just has to be said for people who can't do basic arithmetic. Here is what it is saying:

If you are an American citizen, and you want to kill people, you can be killed.

You live in that society now. Wake up and smell the coffee.

What we have here, in the US, is a process for figuring out who our enemies are. You either think it works or it is abused. Regardless, what you think has nothing to do with what was decided. People who want to kill people can be killed, and your little citizenship badge doesn't save you from it. You're welcome.

For those democrats supporting this. What if a Republican was president and decided leaders of an abortion rights groups was a terrorist (they've been called such), would you support the right of the government to assassinate them? Giving a single person this right is why our fore fathers fled being ruled by a king and established a constitutional government.

This is one more nail in the coffin of this country. For those of you who continue to defend the Obama administration's complete disregard for your rights remember when they come for you it was you who forefitted your rights. They were not stripped from you they were given away by you. Those of us who see what is happening we will at least be able to say we tried. Before you go off crying it was Bush you are right his administration was no good example of liberty either. It was paranoid and a lot of freedoms were sacrificed in the name of national security. Too many rights and now we have Obama who continues down the same road. Bush stole your rights in the name of protecting you from the outside. Obama is stealing your rights in the name of protecting you from yourself. Who is going to protect you from the government if they continue to get away with it. When the hammer falls it may not be Obama in power but whoever is will have far more power over you than the constitution allows and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

Our drones are not equipped with a "pick them up and hand-cuff them" leash, nor a "read them their rights" loudspeaker. Is the Military obligated to go to extraordinary means, risking lives, to capture these suspects, in foreign countries, in order to turn them over to civil authorities? Are the suspects then subject to extradition procedures, or can they legally be simply turned over to civil authorities, in the USA, for trial? I can understand that if one of these citizen-turned-terrorist suspects turned themselves in, they should be offered protection and then they can be presumed innocent and the burden to prove them otherwise would fall to their prosecutors. For example, al Awlaki could have used his trial to portray himself as a "thinker" not a "doer", or to justify his actions.

Lots of innocents are killed in the conflicts and skirmishes of these many "wars". But for the instigators, we are to reserve special treatment and extend to them the dignity and importance we denied the innocents??? Maybe the due process we need is a hearing before they are targeted: were they only advocating violent actions or were they instigating, training and financially supporting the actors. In a "war" you don't normally evaluate the motivations of the poor unfortunates stuck on the front lines: they die on behalf of their cause.

rimbauda

NDAA is written to include on American soil or anywhere in the world. It is only a matter of time until they are justifying using the same principle at home. The problem is they are the only ones who are defining what is terroristic, out of the eyes of the public.

Rimbauda,

I am by no means saying that we should tie the hands of our military in the field. There are certainly dangers to anyone on the battlefield be they our soldiers or americans associating with terrorists. For most combat decisions the possible presence of american terrorists on the field should not be an issue. If we call in a strike against a target and americans are there they took their own risk. The question is about intentionally going after and targeting an american citizen directly because we think they are terrorists. This attack would require due process and you wouldn't want that to be in some pentagon back room or at the whim of a president. There is a huge difference between firing on a hot target where a citizen happens to be even if we know they are there and assainating a citizen.

The scope of whom the government can target is limited to citizens who are affiliated with Al Queda or related organizations. It is easy to infer from case law and precedent that the act of being affiliated with Al Queda is a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship, at the time of joining Al Queda.

"Under current federal law, any party claiming that a person has abandoned his U.S. citizenship must establish three elements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (2000) (text provided in the attached appendix). First, the person must take one of the statutorily enumerated acts of expatriation, such as "obtaining naturalization in" or "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state" after reaching the age of 18, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state . . . engaged in hostilities against the United States," or formal renunciation before an appropriate United States official. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). ⁽⁷⁾ Second, he must act "voluntarily." Id. See also Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 133 ("no conduct results in expatriation unless the conduct is engaged in voluntarily"). Third, he must act "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). ⁽⁸⁾ Expatriation occurs "at the time the expatriating acts were committed, not at the time his alienage was judicially determined." United States ex rel. Marks v. Esperdy, 315 F.2d 673, 676 (2nd Cir. 1963), affirmed by an equally divided court, 377 U.S. 214 (1964); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part.").

Looking at the way some people on the Left, many here on MSNBC, call everyday normal peace loving Christians, Right-wing Fundamentalist Christian Taliban.

david, there are those christians that are absolutely determined to enforce their religious view of "christian morality" by enshrining it into the laws of our country, therfore completely deserving of a title like "christian taliban" sarah palin andrick perry are perfect examples, just look at the comments of their favorite spiritual leaders. comments which include such wonderful things like calling the "age of enlightenment" a huge mistake for reducing the authority of the church. the age of enlightenment is what made this country possible, not christian fundamentalist revisionism.

there are christians that would never dream of such a thing also

Killing an American citizen without due process is murder regardless of their affiliation with any "terror" group. And if they can kill anyone in a "terror" group then they can declare OWS to be terrorists and then send them to military prisons for execution. They can under NDAA. It is all "legal" for the Obama regime and all other future regimes to murder Americans.

This will go down in history as the most controversial decision by a Attorney General in the history of our nation! .... I have believed in this President, and am truly appalled by this decision ...

March 5, 2012 .. the day American Liberty was pronounced dead ... RIP Liberty .... you only lasted 200 years!

don_draper,

Don't you believe that for a minute. AlQuida is target group of the day. Tomorrow a new group will be chosen and it will be interpreted that if it applies to AlQuida it applies to that group. In time it will apply to any group the government considers terrorist. If your example is taken into account then wait until they decide that Skin heads, or Christians, or Jews, or Immigrants, or Tea Parties are terrorist and therefore have "Voluntarily" given up there citizenship?

Polka I will repeat the point I saw somebody else made. Police officers are forced to shoot to kill american citizens when they are threatening the lives of others. I would consider any American citizen allied with Al Queda to be infinitely more dangerous than any given thug with a handgun. And furthermore, it can be shown through caselaw that the act of joining an organization like Al Queda constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. See my post above.

Earl Gray, The country must retain the right to defend itself from existential threats, even from its own citizens. While I recognize the danger of a slippery slope, As always we have the free press and engaged citizens such as yourself to keep an eye on the government and ask questions. That being said, it is clear the government does have some wiggle room to make arguments for killing certain citizens (or voluntary ex-citizens.)

Or it could be as simple as voicing my opinion in a public forum stating that the government is violating the Constitutional rights of 300 million Americans and 8 billion worldwide. And they could make a case that I was giving aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining their position.

And furthermore, it can be shown through caselaw that the act of joining an organization like Al Queda constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. See my post above.

And you are willing to accept the concept that the government can strip someone's citizenship from them??? Remember NDAA. The government can declare anyone to be terrorists now and without proof or a court hearing so under this opinion that the government can execute citizens then what would stop them from declaring OWS to be terrorists, rounding them into prison camps and then executing them??? Fighting "Al-Qaeda" and "terrorism" is their justification but when do they not use that to justify the destruction of our freedoms and civil liberties???

This really is nothing new, Polka. I saw in another post that the US govmt was aware of many US citizens serving in the German army in WWII and made no effort to capture them or otherwise not kill them along with the rest of the Nazi bastards. How is an American member of Al Queda any different?

The constitution is obviously open to interpretation and much of it is not black & white. The Obama administration has every right to interpret it how they see fit just like every other American. It does not necessarily mean that their interpretation is in fact constitutional, but only the courts can determine that. It is how our system was designed to work. Holder isn't being secretive about it, that is why the issue is now in the public sphere for all of us to debate. Perhaps in the future there will be a related case brought before the Supreme Court and we can get some clarity. Those who don't accept the verdict of the Supreme Court, well, there is no answer for you except move.

The U.S. is loosing its moral way. We are not thinking with the right head and we don't have the right leaders and that especially includes Obama.

I can think of no candidate that has less experience in economics, leadership, accounting, politics, public awareness, charisma, intelligence or any aspect that a president should have.

Our freedoms are slowly being eroded and we are all being put in cells.

Obama spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and nothing has actually been accomplished. No pro western governments have been establish and he is dithering and dawdling on Syria and Iran.

We can not give Pakistan 2 billion dollars, we can not give Eqypt 1.3 billion dollars and we cannot give North Korea 240,000 tons of food.

Obama is a fake, a fraud and a fool.

He has absolutely no concept about Syria and Iran and will be known as the American Chamberlain.

"It's better for four guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned,"

"And, the list goes on, and on, and on. FOX makes America look like complete idiots to the rest of the world."

We can do it, I think the world would be about 70% correct in their assumption.

Can we please vote Bush/Cheney out of office, so we can get our military under control?

Most of you morons don't even know your history- in WWI and WWII thousands of American citizens of German ancestry returned to the Fatherland to fight for the Kaiser or Hitler. We didn't give them a trial, we shot them. In several cases, we assassinated them. No uniforms, no battlefield- if they were clearly supporting efforts to kill Americans, they were a legitimate target. We've been doing this for almost 100 years.... so you nitwits stop watching cartoons and read a little bit. Holder's position is consistent with Government actions since 1917/18.

P.S. sure wish Rush would take a trip to Yemen....

Its easy to see what's really going on here, the Obama administration (as well as a majority of the American public) knows that sooner than later, the $hit is going to hit the fan and our economy will collapse like thehouse of cards it is, resulting in civil unrest like we have never seen before. This ruling by Holder clears the way to start gunning down US citizens deemed a threat (A.K.A. terrorist group) bu Obama and his minions. Be afraid, be very afraid! And how ironic is it that our secretary of state Hilary Clinton bemoans the killing in Syria, when we all know good and well our own government would do exactly the same thing here to put down unrest.

Holder is wrong. Worse, Holder is seriously dangerously wrong.

By making this statement, he has setup the following possibilities for the future:

If Sara Palin was President, she could order someone killed that she stated was a "terrorist".

If Newt Gingrich was President, he could order someone killed that he stated was a "terrorist".

If Rush Limbaugh was President, he could order someone killed that he stated was a "terrorist".

If Bill Maure was President, he could order someone killed that he stated was a "terrorist".

If Rebeca Maddow was President, he could order someone killed that she stated was a "terroriest".

According to Eric Holder, all of these possibilities would be legal within this statement. You may state that it would never happen because those people will never be President. But I would point out that President Bush is now highly disliked, yet served two terms as President. American history is full of people who became President who later was hated by many, e.g. President Hoover, President Jackson, etc.

It should also be pointed out that the students at Kent State under this definition "raised arms" against American during the Vietnam protests. OWS and Tea Party rallies have all has people who "raised arms" against Americans. During the history of the McCarthy time, many people were placed on a list of "enemy of the state" because they knew someone that knew someone that knew someone that was a member of an associated that was defined a communist group. Under Eric Holders statements, all of these people could be killed without notice or even being charged with a crime.

This is wrong and extremely scarry!

Amusing how the Obama sycophants will make excuses for this massive overreach. They would be on Bush like mold on old bread if he pulled a stunt like this, but, hey, its Obama so we'll make excuses. Protect us, noble leader, keep us safe from 'terrorists', kill those American terrorists, keep us safe...until it's our turn to be called 'terrorist.' Never, not once, has an AG gotten up on stage and made such statements. Holder is telling the populace that he is going to 'kill' Americans on foreign soil, American whom he deems a threat and he doesn't need 'due process' or rather, judicial process, in order to do so. Who determined who was a terrorist? Now we have a war on Terror, great. Soon, will the War on Poverty bring out a terrorist or two?

This is just the warm up, like the TSA is the warm up. How far can we go before the citizens revolt? How far can we go to set them up so that we can justify killing them, all in the name of 'saving' them?

mygirl: if you'd care to read the posts here on this thread, you'd see a significant number of Obama supporters (and lefties who don't support Obama) criticizing this clearly unconstitutional policy.

And a significant who do. I am hopeful that enough people will be alarmed by this to raise a protest. Am I being silly for hoping?

mygirl: you're not at all being silly for hoping, but you are being silly by pretending Obama supporters are not gravely concerned about this. I think you must mean to have the word "number" before the relative clause "who do."

Holder is a liar that can't be trusted. He's just covering up for the assassinations and other war crimes his boss ordered. Start impeachment hearings for Holder and Obama now.

Yup, I left out 'number.' My typing often lags behind my thinking. Every American should be bothered by this, regardless of politics, religion, etc.

Obama spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan

festus, that was Bush, not Obama, at least place the blame where it properly belongs

I have NO problem with the US Military killing an American citizen who is an enemy combatant on a battlefield in a country where we have declared war. Such was done in WWII as a number of German and Japanese American citizens fought for the other side. I also have no problem with a citizen being killed when force is justified while they are resisting arrest. However, declaring the whole world a battlefield for the "war on terror" is over reaching. Under the current "policy" the president could order an Amercian citizen killed in Canada, the Bahamas, or even the US.

What if we have a citizen who find out something on the president or his party (like in the Nixon days) or if the administration changes and all abortion providers become classed as terrorists? Do we really want the decision left up to one person on whether a citizen lives or dies without checks and balances?

For those insisting that the military needs to act quickly: Try these citizens before a jury in absentia and if they find sufficient evidence for them to be found guilty then issue a warrant for that person's arrest. If they fail to turn themselves in to US authorities for an appeal and possible retrial then it becomes dead or alive. So far there has NEVER been a case where there was not sufficient time to have a trial by jury when a battlefield was not involved, as evidence should be gathered to support the case.

Finally, would we want a military commander or the president making a 5 min decision on whether to kill a citizen who they think might be a terrorist but they don't want to take the time to make sure?

Danwill:

Obama didn't exactly order an immediate pullout. The fact is that we see the same evil no matter which party "controls" the White House or Congress at any given time. That's because the puppet-masters stay the same.

Yes, all enemies foreign & domestic, but military actions should be controlled by rule of law, and citizens shouldn't be denied Constitutional protections of due process of law just because the government says so.

I'm not particularly sad that Anwar al Awlaki is dead, but I am concerned about the rights of citizens under a government that can suspend habeus corpus on a whim. Yes, sometimes those protections shield the guilty, but they also shield the innocent.

I am generally supportive of Obama, but this isn't cool.

And if they kill you without a trial,or presenting any relevant evidence in a court of law,how is that constitutional? Just to cite an example, in Argentina in the 70s and 80s the government used to label you a terrorist without a trial,then send in the armed forces to execute you in the middle of the night. At this point,how are we different???

The oath is to "support and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against all enemies, forgeign and domestic" ....WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The slippery slope is, who determines who the enemy will be? At any time, the government can declare any one of its citizen's the enemy. Just look at all the countries showing civil discourse and unrest with their own government.

If there's a choice of who should be allowed a slippery slope, the government or the people, the government should not be allowed that "slippery slope".

Eric Holder is a traitor, plain & simple. He needs to be fired/impeached and brought up on charges starting with the "Fast & Furious" fiasco...and don't tell me Obama knew nothing about it. Where does his "buck stop"?????

Against all enemies-foreign and domestic. You don't like? Move to Yemen, or better yet Myanmar. Morlack, our soldiers are doing their jobs so that you can post stupid statements like that.

Because the military never, ever makes mistakes about their targets and they always get their intel 100% super accurate.

Exactly right. WE do not have time to lollygag around and allow terrorists who don't like Americans but want to take advantage of our laws. President Obama is doing the right thing. Kill any terrorist before he/she kills a lot of Americans.

Help me out here, Richard.

If an American citizen is shooting at us on a battlefield, do we have to apprehend him with minimal force and read him his Miranda rights?

Where do you draw the line?

Last time I looked, we are still at war with Al-Quada. If an American is a member of this terrorist group - too bad, so sad. Their being a US Citizen does not exempt them from consequences of their terrorist activities. Any more than the people fighting for the Confederated States in the Civil War.

Bottom line - war is hell. If you don't like the consequences - then you should not have started the war.

And for the trolls trying to claim that this action can be used against 'any US Citizen' now - give one example of when this has happened. Just one...

For those who don't like the government's position on this issue, there are several countries to which you can move. We either accept no B.S. when it comes to defending our way of life or we don't. This "American" (term used loosely) elected to forfeit his rights (as a citizen) when he chose to become a terrorist.

if someone is robbing a bank, takes hostages, and threatens to kill them, we as a culture (me too) have no problems with a swat sniper killing them to save others. what's the difference? they plan on killing innocent people, but they're just hiding in a different country. they still are armed, dangerous, and have their sights on us.

Amen...kill these terrorist scum before they complete thier goal of killing Americans!

For those who don't like the government's position on this issue, there are several countries to which you can move. We either accept no B.S. when it comes to defending our way of life or we don't. This "American" (term used loosely) elected to forfeit his rights (as a citizen) when he chose to become a terrorist.

Our way of life includes due process. But if you have a spare million bucks I'll be on the first plane out of the country.

No? Then I'll say what I want, so deal with it.

@wootr7

Yeah, the old "the soldiers over there are defending our freedom" - what freedom? The assault by the government on the Constitution is in full swing.

If you don't like the freedoms in Yemen, guess what? America supports the government there.

Lack of Yemen freedoms has nothing to do with our troops.

So your statements are just rubbish. Just because there are terrorists in the world doesn't mean you tear up the constitution.

If you don't like the American Consititution, YOU should be the one finding another place to live.

Holder is a leader of a terrorist organization (TSA). Does that mean he can be killed without judicial sanction?

I might have agreed with Holder on the premise, but not his implementation. Is there really a reason why the state can't sanction the execution of 'enemies of the state' and have such sanction validated by the judicial system? No single branch of government should ever be fully autonomous, they all need checks and balances. Is there really a need to make this an extrajudicial process, or is it just more expedient to do so?

Of course, there's the goose and gander proposition to consider here! Does Holder also believe that it's ok for foreign governments to kill their citizens on our soil if they deem those citizens as 'enemies of their state'? For example, could China send a cruise missile to execute the Dali lama when he visits over here?

US constitution does not apply in Yemen. US laws only apply to US soil.

I don't like killing anyone, but in our "war on terror" endless war, when someone threatens to kill Americans, it is treason, and much more, and they must be stopped.  You wanted this endless war on terror, to be able to attack any country, for any reason, a so called "pre-emptive" strike we now do, we are always at war. The neo-cons are happy.

Kill the enemy butttttttttt who decides who becomes the enemy or is it just someone this disagrees...

The Fairness doctrine that some people think is right...is/could be a real scary situation for someone that disagrees sharply....just sayin

Carl - I guess the buck stops exactly where it stopped when Iran-Contra happened ....right ?

We can do it:

Let me rephrase that.

We don't think we're like the rest of the world. We believe in individual liberty and responsibility.

Look around the world. There are many regions blessed with natural resources and whatever else is needed to prosper. Only ours has achieved our level of prosperity and freedom. Why do you suppose that is?

By 1980, Western Europe had nearly matched our level of prosperity. Now, their standard of living is roughly 2/3 of ours. No matter what you or your clients read in the NY Times, even our poor live better than their European counterparts. Why do you suppose that is? I blame the great socialist experiment in Europe.

One hundred years ago, South America was roughly as prosperous as the U.S. Now they're relatively poor by any measure. Why do you suppose that is?

Nor do I notice the rest of the world clamoring to emigrate to any of the other Socialist Paradises. They want to come here. Why do you suppose that is?

I'm sorry you can't explain it to your clients. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Why are we asking a criminal what should be allowed? Eric Holder is a criminal.....He should be in Jail...

Eric Holder should be arrested...why is he still there?

Obama is now a neo-con. Will his little supporters also come up with excuses for that as well as all the other Bush-like actions which Obama engages in or will they make excuses? Blame Bush, blame republicans. Blame anyone but Obama for acting like Bush and doing what Bush did.

For all of those declaring that the government should have the power to kill American terrorists:
What happens when the government decides YOU are a terrorist?
This is an outrage because the government could potentially label anyone a terrorist if they choose to do so.

The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life" without due process of law. But that due process, Holder said, doesn't necessarily come from a court.

"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said.

Your due process is whatever we say it is.

We can do it: If you don't think americans are exceptional, perhaps you would like to move to another country? I for one do not want to be like another third world country, which is what Obama is turning us into. Don't believe me, have any of those other countries that we gave our billions to ( especially the Middle East) provided some disaster relief to the people in Indiana and Kentucky. Was it on the same scale as what we gave to them? Save your liberal crap for those who you need to do business with.

Mr. Jones78

US constitution does not apply in Yemen. US laws only apply to US soil.

It would seem that Mr. Holder agrees with you. This is a new application of US law, or rather, the complete elimination of US law.

Expect to see the next item will be summary execution of foreign nationals on US soil, by non-military Federal agents. Then military execution of foreign nationals on US soils. Both without judicial approval. Finally you will have military arrest and execution of US citizens on US soil without judical trials. As Mr. Holder has said, due process does not mean judicial process. That due process has meant judicial process for the last 600 years (in England and the US) means nothing.

We don't have to worry about moving toward being in a police state, we are already in one. George Orwell was an optimist.

Ahteismo,

Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said.

It's seldom that I agree with Eric Holder on anything, but he's not smart enough to be wrong on everything. He got that one right.

Help me out here, Richard.

If an American citizen is shooting at us on a battlefield, do we have to apprehend him with minimal force and read him his Miranda rights?

Where do you draw the line?

That sounds like a good place to me. As I said, I'm not sad that Anwar al Awlaki is dead, and I'm not about to hit the streets protesting that action. The problem is that Holder's statement does not require anyone to be shooting. The government can simply declare that you are a terrorist who poses an "imminent threat" and either a) hold you indefinitely without trial, or b) kill you. Holder has essentially said that any justification can come later.

I'm not saying that the Obama administration is abusing this power or wielding it indiscriminately. I'm saying that such a broad interpretation is very open to abuse and shortcircuits the 14th Amendment. Even if the Obama administration exercises its power judiciously (and yes I know this is open to debate), future administrations might not. We don't have freedoms because the government decides to let us have them; we have freedoms because the government is Constitutionally forbidden from taking them away.

Sick and tired of listening to all these dogooders complaining about us killing terrorists overseas. If they are US born, and are engaged in terrorism, then nationality doesn't apply. A US born terrorist is worse, in my opinion, than a foreign born. Why should we treat them any different. They will kill you, just as easily, without hesitation. I served my country honorably, and didn't kill anyone. if they align tehmselves with terrorist, their citizenship is voided.

GOD bless America

Economan

Seriously? What is the logical end to that position? He didn't say if you're overseas you don't get judicial process...he said that due process != judicial process (especially when national security is involved).

Coming to the US mainland soon, just like the NDAA.

Wake up folks!

Guess all you little 'it's ok to kill American terrorists' group would like a brief explanation of what Homeland Security calls 'terrorist.'

A potential terrorist is anyone who:

Expresses Libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)

Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA, gun club membership or CCW permit holders)

Posesses survivalist literature

Engages in Self-Sufficiency ie: survivalist activities (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)

Expresses fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)

Expresses religious views concerning the Book of Revelations

Expresses fear of Big Brother or Big Government

Engages in homeschooling

Believes in a New World Order Conspiracy

People engaged in the above activities or mind-set may be considered 'extremist' or another group are 'milita groups, hiding in plain sight, ready to attack.'

Then again, guess the drones now used in civilian surveillance are there to determine possible terrorist threats, especially from the homeschoolers.

any one remenber the tv serial " jericho ".. you must see it.. there is a message in it ..

People, not to burst anyones bubble but your Constitutional Rights and due process and any other rights you think you have only applies to US citizens on US soil. If you are a US citizen and you go to another country and commit a murder your US Constitutional Rights don't mean spit.......don't believe me...just ask that little girl that was on trial for murder in Italy. Ask her how her US Constitutional rights helped her.......

This man denounce his US citizenship and publicly announce his intent on being a terrorist against the US. He made himself a legitimate target as a terrorist......

LoneRanger01

False analogy buddy. Amanda Knox was accused of violating the laws of her host country, you are subject to local laws when in another country. The US was not prosecuting her.

A US citizen should be convicted in a court of law (even if in absentia) before any punishment is meted out.

When I read this article I got this knot in my gut. FEAR. Satanick, you said it perfectly. What is to stop our government (Obama) from saying anyone is a terrorist. This terrorist that those in power keep talking about is fiction. Those in power control us everyday people with this propaganda. We, the USA, does not murder people with out due process.

pretty scary when our government determines who is a terrorist.you would have to trust our government.i dont know anyone who trusts our government.think right citizen or else.personally i love big brother and live to serve him and his wealthy masters

Unhappy-1583758

We can do it: If you don't think americans are exceptional, perhaps you would like to move to another country?

I think more like Jesus, that all people. from all nations, are exceptional.

careful mygirl1 youre about one post from disappearing into a Romanian prison for life.have i said lately how i condemn your anti government positions

@jungleboogie, I have defended this country and shed blood for it. I will be damned if I sit here and listen to your rant about not having freedoms. Your posting on this blog is a freedom that you wouldn't enjoy in many countries. Don't like it? Too F'N bad. Move on.

Atheismo,

Are you trying to say that the only "due process" consists of proceedings in our civilian courts? Are you saying it doesn't count unless you are properly arrested, read your "Miranda rights" and have 10+ years of appeals? Surely you're not serious.

Give it a little thought. What if there's an American citizen on the other side of a battlefield. Must we blow a whistle, call time-out, and yell, "We're Americans! Drop it!". How comical do you want to be?

Don't be confused. I'm just as opposed to the de facto repeal of our Fourth Amendment as anyone. Let's start with the TSA goons. Let's get rid of all of them and their enablers. Anyone stupid enough to think we need to strip search Grandma who speaks mid-Western American English shouldn't be allowed any position of authority in the U.S. If you're too dumb to profile, you're a danger to what's left of our freedoms.

" False analogy buddy. Amanda Knox was accused of violating the laws of her host country, you are subject to local laws when in another country. The US was not prosecuting her." So what part of your US Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens on US soil did you not understand? My point was she was on foreign soil so she had NO US Constitutional Rights.

Any terrorist on foreign soil is fair game for assassination. If the terrorist is on US soil he/she will be arrested and will be given a trail. Show me just one terrorist caught on US soil that has not had or is not waiting for his/her day in court. There are none.

We can do it:

I think more like Jesus, that all people. from all nations, are exceptional.

When Garrison Keillor said all the children were above average, he was spoofing. If you believe that, then you've been duped by the left-wing fools who want us to degrade ourselves to European status. President Obama is proud of you.

Hello Folks, as you can see the Democrats and Republicans have turned into a two headed one party system who have equally violated our Bill of Rights. There is no difference, it just allows you to pick a side and the powers that be let you fight and weaken each other while they corral you.

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act and National Defense and Authorization Act! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! What's to keep them from arming them? You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security” etc…!

Now they can kill you if they label you a terrorist. Who's doing the labeling, the same group of yahoos who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

If you label yourself as a Republican or a Democrat the joke is on you. Now they have you right where they want you, in fear, divided, and distracted while they pull your rights right out form under you.

So keep on ridiculing and fighting with each other even though we are all the same and all need the same things to survive. This includes all races, religions and people.

Or you can try to love and respect each other and work for a common group, humanity!

Considering that Obama and Holder both use a pretty broad brush to paint anyone as a terrorist, ex-military, Christian, gun owners, or anyone who opposes their ideology, and also considering Holders past record and Obamas past associations this is a very frightening position for them to take. Be ready for some excuse for Obama to either do away with elections or somehow stay in office next year, I hope I am wrong, but these guys seem more and more totalitarian by the day.

Economan

No, there are other methods of due process, including the UCMJ. Your battlefield example is not apt, because it has always been the case that taking up arms against the US or joining a foreign fighting force is a defacto renunciation of citizenship. You may believe that a "terrorist" is no different, but it is a very different thing to kill an American who is shot by return fire when firing on American troops than it is to bomb an American from the sky because a secret panel has decided that they fit the definition of a terrorist.

That said, my greatest fear here is that Holder did not say "on foreign soil," he said judiciary process does not equal due process, despite that it does, and always has meant that. This is an awfully slippery slope.

LoneRanger01

Show me just one terrorist caught on US soil that has not had or is not waiting for his/her day in court.

Would we know if there were?

There are none.

I hope not...I just worry that this type of thinking will inevitably lead us there.

Killing a US citizen accused of terrorism without a trial in a civilian court is a violation of the US constitution. There's over 200 years of court law to this effect.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Just because the US accuses you of terrorism and you happen to be inside another country does NOT give the governement the right to have you killed. This isnt the same as a cop shooting someone while they are trying to arrest them because they pulled a gun. This is the US governement shooting a missle from a drone and killing you while your eating soup in a hut in the middle of another country. That is targeted killing that is MURDER without due process.

Holder argues due process doesn't really have to mean the courts, well that's great but we've had 200 years of laws that say different. This is a slippery slop because now all the governement has to do is have you be OUTSIDE the USA and accuse you of terrorism and they can eliminate you.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. 

Yeah the guy they had killed probably really was a terrorist (heck im pretty sure they have video of him admiting it) but that doesn't mean you can just skip arresting him and having a trial.

you can't trust the home schoolers mygirl.............a bunch of terrorists if you ask me

Just another reason why I have absolutely NO RESPECT for ANY laws in this country any more.

Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process

Really, Mr. Holder? Really? This is a slippery slope. I agree that if an American has sided with an opposing force and is actively engaging targets, then he/she should be dealt with like an enemy would. However, it is the second sentence, referring to due process, that scares me. The Attorney General of the United States believes that due process is different than the judicial process. Oh boy...here we go...

Yea, I have to say, I don't agree with this at all.

Also how does Eric Holder still have a job in this administration?

Richard, Wa;

R

"Rule of law" you say?, I submit to you the U.S. military rules of engagement. The rules and regulations of uniform combat, never heard of them? Ever read them? More importantly, ever served in the military? I guessing no. If so you would know all this.

If a U.S. citizen joins and actively supports an enemy or fires on his countrymen in service of a foreign enemy, and/or power, under even the most abstract definition that makes him a traitor and an enemy combatant. As such he is subject to the same treatment as an enemy combatant. Which includes being being shot, bombed, or captured and tried under military law. The rule of law you seem so intent on expires at the borders of the U.S. You can not wrap yourself in your rights in a foreign land. As they simple do not apply, especially while serving as an enemy fighter, strategist or spy. Contrasty, foreign nations illegally within the U.S. are not automatically entitled to the rights of citizens. I would suggest a re-read or first read of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. bill of rights and the U.S. articles of confederation.

Civilian law simple does not apply to battle fields. Any first year law student knows that, as well as anyone who ever served in uniform service to the U.S. Here's an idea, if you find yourself face to face with one or more of these terrorists, do stress your U.S. citizenship and desire to be treated equally to U.S. civil law. You will hear them laughing loudly, just before they pull the trigger on their AK-47. Join the real world, you'll find it easier to live in than fantasy.

I'm with the ACLU on this. The Patriot act too, needs to be shoved up the governments ass. Authorities must be able to prove, as per constitutional requirements, a citizen, or group, is outside the laws based on that constitution before taking any action against that person or group. It's real simple.

News flash people! Your ignorance of the Constitution is showing! The President does not take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath goes as such-I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's it, period. Once again, Holder is wrong. The government has no more authority to kill alleged American terrorists than they would a criminal suspect. They need to impose martial law and employ the military to do so. Our military members are the ones whose oath speaks of defending against enemies, foreign and domestic.
It's not that I'm against deadly force. I'm against denying due process. Police officers aren't allowed to shoot and kill people without a clear need for self defense or defense of others. "The attorney general told the law students that the government is under no legal obligation to delay a targeted killing operation until a terrorist plotter is in the process of carrying out an actual attack." He is saying all they need is suspicion that someone will wage such an attack, and our government can kill them. This is the same basis for the movie, Minority Report.
What happens if they get the wrong suspect? Do any of you recall Richard Jewell? They were sure he was the bomber in the 1996 attack on the Olympics in Atlanta. They were wrong. If Holder had been AG then, Mr. Jewell could have been murdered by our government before they learned they had the wrong man! Is that what you want?

Economan

In post 2.43 you say:

Are you trying to say that the only "due process" consists of proceedings in our civilian courts? Are you saying it doesn't count unless you are properly arrested, read your "Miranda rights" and have 10+ years of appeals? Surely you're not serious.

I believe that Mr Holder is wrong in this case. I just cannot go along with our government violating the protections of our citizens without Due Process of law. If we do, then none of us are safe. Who, exactly will have the power to determine who is a "terrorist". With the way our government has been going in the past 50 years, I'm a little worried about giving that much power to some nameless faceless spooks that live in a blacked out room that requires a retinal scan to gain entry.

I served with the 3rd Marine in Quang Tri and Thua Thien Provinces of Vietnam. One morning I saw some ARVN Soldiers drag two guys that they suspected of being sympathizers or something out into the road, put a .45 to their heads and put an end the issue on the spot. At the time as an 19 year old Marine private, my thought was "who really gives a Crap?" I thought there might have been a possibility that they might have helped get some of my brother Marines hurt or killed. I've had 45 years to rethink the happenings of that day and come to little different conclusion. If we do as they do, we are no better than they are. That is, after all, the difference between "us" and "them" isn't it?

I am happy as dammit that Al-Awlaki is sharing a bunk in Hell with Bin Laden, but I'm not happy with how it was done because I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I want he and all of his ilk to be removed from this earth in the most painful way possible since I personally knew people that died in the 9/11 attack, but I want it done by the numbers with Due Process of Law. I have no problem with justified targeted strikes and even with hitting "non combatants" that have provided aid and support to he and his ilk. My problem comes with the fact that, as much as I hate to admit it, the miserable bastard and his driving partner were still American citizens. Therefore they deserved at least a trial in absencia and a legislated removal of his citizenship prior to the strike.

Just like was done in Edward Everett Hale's short story The Man Without A Country. Try him in absensia, convict him of aiding and abetting terrorism and them pass the results to congress. congress can then pass a special bill to remove his citizenship and the protections is gives. If we use Due Process to remove his citizenship by trial and legislation, then we can do whatever we want to do to him legally and still protect Your and my rights to under the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. Without following Due Process of law, I think, the government is setting in motion the ability for some nameless, faceless bureaucrat to declare anyone a "viable target" and erase them from the earth without anything other than an "I don't like you". With that, no one will be safe from the government's excesses.

Don't get me wrong, I do not defend Al-Awlaki. I would have gladly paid a premium price to sit on the front row while he was being Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered. What I am doing is defending the system that protects both you and me from the excesses that government is capable of in the wrong hands. That system only works to protect us if it protects all of us. We can't pick and choose who gets the protection and who does not. We did that once some 70 years ago with Japanese Americans. We have done the same thing many times over the years with Native Americans. I don't want that to become the norm. The next time it might be me that is denied the process one day because someone in power doesn't like my attitude? What do you think could be happening to the Occupy Wall Street folks right now if Dick Chaney or Donald Rumsfeld were in charge and had the power to order Drone strikes against those they felt were wrong? That sword cuts both ways.

It pains me to have to give this miserable bastard the protection of our laws. But if we don't, we take those protections from everyone. As Sir Thomas More said:

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake, not for his!

But more importantly, I think our leadership has chosen to ignore the words of Friedrich Nietzsche:

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

Chris,

First, thank you for a thoughtful reply.

We probably are not far apart in our opinions. My point is strictly limited to the idea that due process doesn't always mean 10 years of judicial process. I believe that that is what Eric Holder is trying to say, too.

I also share your concern about Constitutional rights. I see them trompled every day. Just go to any airport and watch the TSA goons. Fourth Amendment, R.I.P. I don't see much need to suspend any of our rights within our borders. We have sufficient public safety personel and process to protect us by our usual means. I could drone on about offenses to just about any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, too.

Please note the italicized text above. I hope you'll agree that we both want approximately the same thing.

Economan,

I hope you'll agree that we both want approximately the same thing.

I think we do, but I am very concerned about what government CAN do when left to their own devices. I don't want 10 years of trial and 30 years of litigation, but I also don't want some faceless spook to be to just shout, "He is a Terrorist because I say so", followed by a large and resounding SWACK (the sound when Wile E. Coyote does something stupid) ! Neither extreme is good.

We have the power to try and convict someone in absencia. It has been down with miserable SOBs like Ira Einhorn. Once convicted by a judge and Jury, send the results to congress and let them strip him of his citizenship and the rights thereof. Then you can shove all the hellfire missiles up his butt that you want to; by the numbers, without starting down the slippery slope that can only end in tyranny. Otherwise, one day, what I saw all those years ago near of Dong Ha could be the rule and not the exception. And it could be You or me rather than Al-Awlaki and his print shop running friend.

The problem with what we do is that most times they have unintended consequences. The people writing them have all of the best intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

SUGGESTION: all of you people who don't like our ability to run down and kill the people who are trying to kill US and our friends can get right over there to the battlefield and arrest them yourselves. Put your effort where your words are. I'm sure all the bad guys will roll right over for you.

The ACLU is nothing but a self-serving bunch of rabble-rousers who cherrypick the constitutional problems they want to go after-and they'd be the first to complain if the cops were not there lickety-split to kill the guy trying to blow up their offices....it's the Carl Rowan school of gun control.

What's funny is that the libs AND the cons are upset with Holder, though deservedly so- he's easily the worst attorney general to come along in history:

Ritdog-908299

SUGGESTION: all of you people who don't like our ability to run down and kill the people who are trying to kill US and our friends can get right over there to the battlefield and arrest them yourselves. Put your effort where your words are. I'm sure all the bad guys will roll right over for you.

First, I HAVE been there and done that; 3rd Marine in Quang Tri and Thua Thien Provinces of Vietnam starting with the '68 Tet. Vietnam. Both my son and daughter also served, but out of curiosity, where exactly did YOU serve?

Next, If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I Don't advocate "arresting" them on the battlefield. I am perfectly OK with turning them and all of their friends into smoldering greasy spots at the bottom of a crater the sized of Texas. What I am NOT OK with is a group of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a blacked out room that requires a retinal scan to enter having that much power without the requisite amount of responsibility and accountability to go with it. I don't want these "Men in Black" to have the power to say "We don't like those SOBs Ritdog-908299 and Chris-382117. They doesn't agree with us, so they Must be a Terrorist. Send a drone after them and Light 'em up." That is what they CAN do if this is allowed to stand.

We have the ability to try someone in absencia (in absence). Al-Awlaki has been doing this crap for a while. Clinton, G W Bush, or Obama could have done just that to him. Try him in absencia for terrorism. It would not have been too hard to convict the bastard using his own words. Then, any of the aforementioned presidents could have asked congress to strip him of his citizenship and declare him Persona non Grata. I bet they could have passed that bill unanimously.

Strip him of his rights and privileges that come with American Citizenship and send him a note over CNN saying "You are no longer one of us; you are on your own." At that point, the US Government is free to puree him in a Blender if the feel the need to do so without violating your and my protections as American citizens. But if these nameless bureaucrats can ignore his protections and rights under the law, they can ignore yours and mine just as easily. The Sword cuts both ways.

US laws apply only on US soil. If a US citizen breaks a law in a foriegn country there is no US judges who have jurisdiction outside the US who can give them due process. Court cases happen where the crime was committed.

This has always been the case. Its called sovereignty people.

Sovereignty is not a slippery slope where now Obama will soon get to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants too. Thats alarmist ignorant bulls***.

If the president is killing terrorists he is doing his job.

Intrested observer, there are more but since you sound young; I'll try to give you one that's more recent. Ruby Ridge! Do you remember that one? They killed his son,wife and shot his baby and did all of this based on lies from the FBI. The attacking force was told a lot of mis-truths and too expect these people to be combative, watch out for explosives on the grounds. Hey would this be ok with you if it were your family?

This is what can happen when you relinquish too much power to the government. We as a people need to start deciding which rights were are going to give up in the name of safety.

Mr. Jones78

Sovereignty is not a slippery slope where now Obama will soon get to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants too. Thats alarmist ignorant bulls***

In France, the French authorities can kill anyone they want to given the correct justification; that is sovereignty. We CANNOT go over to France and kill someone (even a French Citizen) without permission; that is an act of war. We cannot, because of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the Constitution, kill an American Citizen without due process of law, anywhere. or would you like it if I became one of those faceless bureaucrats and decided that I don't like you personally. Because I don't like you and I have no accountability, I can declare Mr. Jones78 to be a terrorist for no other reason that I don't like you and I will not be held accountable. Then, while you are traveling on your Carnival Cruise through the Caribbean, I call out the Drones and convert you to a greasy spot on the deck.

Evidently you didn't read the earlier posts (or comprehend them). This is NOT about going out to the battlefield and handcuffing the bastard; it is about following the process of our law. It is not for his protection, it is for yours and mine. Now, who is being Ignorant here?

Nicodemus1946 -

Rule of law" you say?, I submit to you the U.S. military rules of engagement. The rules and regulations of uniform combat, never heard of them? Ever read them? More importantly, ever served in the military? I guessing no. If so you would know all this.

Yes, yes, special circumstances apply in military engagements. I'm less concerned about foreign actions than domestic ones, and I am not at all concerned about combat activity.

Here are the scenarios that concern me:

I decide that I don't like the current administration (whoever it might be - doesn't matter for this scenario) and I'm vocal about it. I have enough sway that I make enemies in the Executive. I go traveling to, say, Yugoslavia to visit relatives. The DoJ decides that I'm a troublemaker and has soldiers come and kill me, later justifying it with whatever. There is no oversight in the decision.

Same scenario as above, but I'm sitting at home in Seattle watching football. The DoJ decides that I'm a troublemaker and has soldiers come and kill me, later justifying it with whatever. There is no oversight in the decision.

Do you see the distinction? I'm not talking about military engagements. Hell, if you point a gun at a police officer, let alone a soldier, you are probably going to die. There is no Constitutional infringement either way - it's called justifiable homocide. Holder is saying that they can kill you if they want to and later claim you posed a threat. There is no oversight in the decision. That's an abrogation of due process.

I'm not saying that the Obama administration will do this. I'm saying that the door to this kind of liberty by federal sufferance has been opened.

I don't like my Pakistani neighbor's son. I post information about him on the internet and expose his strongly-expressed, teenage, rebellious sympathies for the terrorists. When his family visits Pakistan, he is targeted and killed while riding a moped with a family friend. No judicial review. Don't we need at least something like the FISA court, or a committee of congress, to review the targeting of enemies not involved in the heat of a battle? I trust that the targeting of al Awlaki was not done lightly and that the decision was carefully reviewed and documented, but I share the concerns of those who decry the lack of a hearing.

Richard....I think your scenarios are blown way out of proportion. To start with if you were on American soil you would be arrested for making terrorist threats just like all the other terrorist were. As for this al Awlaki, well he did make his intentions very clear as to what his plans were towards the US and its citizens. He was in my opinion a legitimate target. And had he been in the US on US soil he would probably have been in jail awaiting trial instead of dead wishing he wasn't.

What I see happening here is that people are trying to hold/apply our US Constitutional Rights for foreign terrorists on foreign soil. They have NO Constitutional Rights.

Chris

Yemen does not respect or recognize the US constitution, it has its own laws. Killing a non-Yemen citizen who is a terrorist threat to the US is not an act of war (nations have a right o defend themselves), and the terrorist doesn't have to be on the battlefield to be a threat. If taking them out is easier when they are asleep do it then. The military was not created to capture people and bring them to court. They deal with threats on foreign soil. And no US laws are not recognized on cruise ships when they are not in US waters.

...Killing a non-Yemen citizen who is a terrorist threat to the US is not an act of war (nations have a right o defend themselves)...

Actually, it IS an "act of war". There is no component of justification in the concept of "act of war". There is only the concept of one nation violating another nations sovereign territory without permission. On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed the United States base located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. It did so because it believed it was defending itself and its strategic interest. It was an "act of war" for which the United States responded by "declaring war on Japan" and "pursued armed war conflict".

As for Yemen, I believe the action that the United States did there actually had the permission of the current world recognized government. This means that it would not be considered an "act of war" but a policing action with the consent of the established recognized government.

It should be noted that both the attack on Bin Laden in Pakistan and Qaddafi in Libya in this past year are examples of United States military action that violated the sovereign country in question without the concept of the established government at the time. So in terms of the definition of the words "act of war", those actions qualify. In the case of Pakistan, they have not completely decided to respond to the violation of their sovereignty in any means other than in than diplomatically. In the case of Libya, that government was destroyed resulting in a "regime change."

Arguments can be made if a nation has the write to protect themselves by striking targets that threaten them in other countries or not, but please do not try to lessen the idea that those actions are still an "act of war". It should be noted that if you follow that the consent of a nation protecting itself from threats located in foreign countries regardless of those boarders, than you are accepting the fact that China has the right to fire their version of Hellfire missiles in Los Angelas when the Dai Lama is visiting since he is consider a terrorist and criminal by the Chinese government. Or are you one of those that believes it is "right for me but wrong for you" to do some violent actions?

Richard....I think your scenarios are blown way out of proportion.

You might be right in our current political climate, but Holder's statement does not depend upon foreign soil and it sets a precedent for future administrations. It does not require a person to be a public threat. It only requires that the administration declare the person a public threat. At that point, all Constitutional rights of the person can be immediately revoked with no oversight or review.

Consider if we elected another Nixon. Would you trust him not to abuse this power?

The law protects the guilty and the innocent alike. Setting them aside to make the pursuit of the guilty more convenient also puts the innocent at risk.

Richard....Again I think what he said has been blown way out of proportion. As you know I do not articulate very well and I think I can say the same about Holder. Maybe that is why I understand what he is saying.....

Any one person/s or group/s on foreign soil who makes terrorist threats or acts against the US and or "Her" citizens does not have any constitutional rights and becomes a legitimate target for the US.

Terrorists on US soil just as they have been in the past and as the US Constitution states are arrested and given a trial. The terrorists can be both foreign or domestic but they are given a fair trial. And until some one can prove other wise I will believe it will hold true in the future....

LR -

I most sincerely hope you are correct. Language is open to interpretation, and those who want to abuse power can interpret precedent in ways not foreseen at the time.

I don't think the Obama administration is going to go out looking for political opponents to imprison indefinitely. I agree that some decisions need to be made quickly and decisively to protect the country. I also think that the power of the Executive needs to be tempered by oversight from the Legislative and the Judicial. It's a difficult line to walk.

Richard: sad to say, I think many at Guantanamo and some people stateside (like Jose Padilla or Bradley Manning) would take issue with your statement that "I don't think the Obama administration is going to go out loking for policital opponents to imprison indefinitely."

Obama will deliberately, and correctly, "abuse" the powers afforded him by the Patriot Act and the NDAA in his second term, so that they will be removed from the "quiver" of future Presidents. He knows that these powers are unconstitutional, and that the only way to illustrate the need for their removal is to make use of them in a way that everyone will then, in hindsight, agree that it was naive to have given the presidency unconstitutional powers to fight "terrorism".

I think many at Guantanamo and some people stateside (like Jose Padilla or Bradley Manning) would take issue with your statement that "I don't think the Obama administration is going to go out loking for policital opponents to imprison indefinitely."

<sigh> I suppose so. I'm far too idealistic for my own good.

Obama will deliberately, and correctly, "abuse" the powers afforded him by the Patriot Act and the NDAA in his second term, so that they will be removed from the "quiver" of future Presidents.

If you can publish that internal White House memorandum, I guarantee you will be independently wealthy from the talk show circuit in about a week.

Paul...seriouly dude, have you even read what the Presidential autority section 106 says about his authority? Obviously not so here is the section106..
"

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50

U.S.C. 1702) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1)—

(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that

subparagraph), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a comma

and the following:

‘‘by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States;’’;

(B) in subparagraph (B)—

(i) by inserting ‘‘, block during the pendency of

an investigation’’ after ‘‘investigate’’; and

(ii) by striking ‘‘interest;’’ and inserting ‘‘interest

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States; and’’;

(C) by striking ‘‘by any person, or with respect to

any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States‘; and

(D) by inserting at the end the following:

18 USC 3056

note.

VerDate 11-MAY-200

115 STAT. 278 PUBLIC LAW 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001

‘‘(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities

or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign

nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction

of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign

organization, or foreign country that he determines has

planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities

or attacks against the United States; and all right, title,

and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when,

as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such

agency or person as the President may designate from

time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the

President may prescribe, such interest or property shall

be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise

dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the

United States, and such designated agency or person may

perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment

or furtherance of these purposes.’’; and

(2) by inserting at the end the following:

‘‘(c) C

LASSIFIED INFORMATION

.—In any judicial review of a

determination made under this section, if the determination was

based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the

Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be

submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This

subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.’’.

I don't see mention of killing them anywhere in your post.

We can do it:

I think more like Jesus, that all people. from all nations, are exceptional.

When Garrison Keillor said all the children were above average, he was spoofing. If you believe that, then you've been duped by the left-wing fools who want us to degrade ourselves to European status. President Obama is proud of you.

as opposed to the right-wing fools that are trying to return us to third-world status

The government considered the confederacy to be US citizens in rebellion but the confederates considered them to be citizens of the CSA. The constitution deals with this very specifically.

You will miss those civil liberties when they are gone man.

From Article 1 section 9 of the constitution.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, for this very reason. He knew the Constitution as well as anyone.

We have a Constitution in this nation. Its there for a purpose!!! To protect us from our government. You just can't shut down the constitution at a whim! And who is to judge who is a Terrorist and who is not?

And what happens when its proven that the person the Government has murdered was not a terrorist and the group they were in was a prayer circle of Christians praying for help from God, and not a Terrorist organization cell?

Eric Holder has already proven he is a Traitor over Fast and Furious, (By the way The MSM has a massive Media Blackout on the trial, the investigations and anything else associated with Fast and Furious) Now Eric Holder is a traitor for taking away from us our right to due process!!!

Those of you who support this, I have just one thing to say to you... Don't come crying to me if one of your friends are accidently murdered by the US Government because they thought your friend was a Terrorist.

We have a Constitution for a purpose: To defend ourselves from the Government.

"A people who gives up a little Freedom, for Protection from Terrorist, deserves neither freedom or security." Franklin.

Its very sad when Citizens of this nation celebrate giving up their Constitutional Rights for a microbe of Security!!!

And thats my Opinion.

Let me explain how rational adults should view this issue, in my opinion.

First, citizenship IS a right quaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, there need to be extreme circumstances involved in order to deny the rights bestowed by that citizenship. You, and others, may feel that the circumstances justify denial of those rights. You may even be correct in believing so. However, in THIS country, the only legal method of determining whether justification exists is through the courts. Which brings me to my second point.

Second, if we're to assume that rights can be denied and the courts do not need to be involved, then who is the arbiter in this situation? Who judges the validity of the accusation that a particular person has committed an offense that would allow rights to be taken away? The only two options I can see are the military or the Executive branch. When either of those situations exist( by definition: denial of rights without adversarial adjudication), you are talking about dictatorship...either military dictatorship(military tribunal) or civilian dictatorship(the executive).

Third, I would simply ask that you do some forward thinking and consider what happens when a precedent is set that allows rights to be taken away without judicial process. Such precedent can then be used to justify taking away anything you are allowed to do now simply because it is considered( by the dictator) to be a threat to the state. I use the word "state" because another used that word....Hitler.

Let me see... in the future we elect a president who determines thatamericans who are muslims, chinese, russian, etc... are threats to our security. Precedent is set here to deny those people rights. We did it to the Janapese, Africans, and Native Americans before useing this same justification. What if a president determines that tobacco and alcohol are threats to the state( since they both require large amounts of money invested to treat associated health condiitons thereby threatening the financial solvency of the state)?

You see, it's not just the current issue one must consider but also the potential outcomes as this principle is applied in other areas. The very notion that rights can be denied at the whim of any one person is dangerous. As a strong supporter of this president I must say that he is seriously disappointing me lately with his conservative, hawkish policy decisions. I am reassessing whether their might be an alternative candidate I could support. I do this because I'm concerned that either this president is failing to see obvious consequences of his actions which is cripples his ability to lead effectively, OR he's well aware of the consequences of his actions and has determined it's acceptable to follow a path that might lead to denial of rights in the future. If he's following the latter scenario, perhaps the right wing is correct and he IS a mini-Hitler. The only other possibility is that he knows the consequences but figures he's planning on his policies being overturned after the fact thus protecting the rights of the people in the end. If that's the case, then it's only abuse of office, right? This policy is a disaster Mr. President.

K.Kammeyer said:

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, for this very reason. He knew the Constitution as well as anyone.

Yeah, but he didn't PERMANENTLY suspend it.

Safeguarding our individual freedom against arbitrary state action I always thought was a good thing.

The list of countries that can convict and execute you without a judge nor a trial is very small. But America has now been added to that list.

Let's see when was the last time America went batsh!t crazy and was accusing everyone of being something? Hmmm. Communists in the 1950s & McCarthyism, that's it!

Except this time, if you are accused you are just dead. No congressional hearings, no lawyer, no due process, just bullet in the head with your own tax dollars.

America, Land of the Free has become not so free anymore.

Side note: This site needs to allow more time to revise and correct. I was only able to correct about half of the grammar and punctuation problems in my post.

Another point about judicial process vs. "due" process is that judicial process usually goes on in daylight, so we can see what the process in fact is.

"Due" process in the oval office or anywhere else but in a courtroom, can not be witnessed by the general public.

I am very, very disappointed in president Obama for signing NDAA. I hope the ACLU is all over this.

Support your senators to amend this act to exclude us citizens, wherever or whoever they may be. Careful and deliberate prosecution is preferable to a lynching any day.

With google tracking your every e-mail, street cameras knowing where your car is, etc.,

you could be next.

@RyanDallasTexas

WOW, no he wasn't on a battlefield. They shot a missle from a drone to where they knew he was at. For all you knew he was sitting down eating soup talking with a friend. There is no comparison, they should have sent the troops in to take him into custody and then if they resisted (ie started shooting) then they could use lethal force (this is what they did with Osama Bin Laden) you go in say hey were taking you into custody they say F U *bang*bang*bang* then you kill them. That's how you deal with any criminal.

This is a scary idea, that all they have to do is CALL you a terrorist a label that is just applied to you by people in the government and they can put you in Guantanemo forever without a trial! Now they can kill you if you happen to be outside the USA. What's next? Calling political rivals terrorists? There isn't a trial, there isn't a judge and there's no legally defined process for labeling someone a terrorist. This should scare the hell out of any American.

Does the U.S. Constitution extend beyond our borders? I think that's the first question that needs to be addressed before declaring whether a U.S. citizen has any constitutional rights beyond our borders in situations where they have been deemed (yet another question: who made that decision?)an enemy of the state.

Is there any historical precedence for such a situation?

Asked and answered a long time ago. If American citizenship is going to mean anything, it means that our own country will observe its own rules, as proscribed in the US Constitution, when dealing with us, its citizens, anywhere in the world.

RyanDallasTexas,

Anwar al Awlaki was on the other side of the battle field, that's it. There's no need for a trail.

I believe that Mr Holder is wrong in this case. I just cannot go along with our government violating the protections of our citizens without Due Process of law. If we do, then none of us are safe. Who, exactly will have the power to determine who is a "terrorist". With the way our government has been going in the past 50 years, I'm a little worried about giving that much power to some nameless faceless spooks that live in a blacked out room that requires a retinal scan to gain entry.

I served with the 3rd Marine in Quang Tri and Thua Thien Provinces of Vietnam starting with the '68 Tet. One morning I saw some ARVN Soldiers drag two guys that they suspected of being sympathizers or something out into the road, put a .45 to their heads and put an end the issue on the spot. At the time as an 19 year old Marine private, my thought was "who really gives a Crap?" I thought there might have been a possibility that they might have helped get some of my brother Marines hurt or killed. I've had 45 years to rethink the happenings of that day and come to little different conclusion. If we do as they do, we are no better than they are. That is, after all, the difference between "us" and "them" isn't it?

I am happy as dammit that Al-Awlaki is sharing a bunk in Hell with Bin Laden, but I'm not happy with how it was done because I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I want he and all of his ilk to be removed from this earth in the most painful way possible since I personally knew people that died in the 9/11 attack, but I want it done by the numbers with Due Process of Law. I have no problem with justified targeted strikes and even with hitting "non combatants" that have provided aid and support to he and his ilk. My problem comes with the fact that, as much as I hate to admit it, the miserable bastard and his driving partner were still American citizens. Therefore they deserved at least a trial in absencia and a legislated removal of his citizenship prior to the strike.

Take a page from Edward Everett Hale's short story The Man Without A Country. Try him in absensia, convict him of aiding and abetting terrorism and then pass the results to congress. Congress can then pass a special bill to remove his citizenship and the protections is gives. After all, congress has the right to bestow citizenship, why can't they take it away. If we use Due Process to remove his citizenship by trial and legislation, then we can do whatever we want to do to him legally and still protect Your and my rights to under the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments.

Without following Due Process of law, the government is setting in motion the ability for some nameless, faceless bureaucrat to declare anyone a "viable target" and erase them from the earth without anything other than an "I don't like you". With that, no one will be safe from the government's excesses.

Don't get me wrong, I do not defend Al-Awlaki. I would have gladly paid a premium price to sit on the front row while he was being Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered and taken pictures. What I am doing is defending the system that protects both you and me from the excesses that government is capable of in the wrong hands. That system only works to protect us if it protects all of us. We can't pick and choose who gets the protection and who does not. We did that once some 70 years ago with Japanese Americans. We have done the same thing many times over the years with Native Americans. I don't want that to become the norm. The next time it might be me that is denied the process one day because someone in power doesn't like my attitude? What do you think could be happening to the Occupy Wall Street folks right now if Dick Chaney or Donald Rumsfeld were in charge and had the power to order Drone strikes against those they felt were wrong? That sword cuts both ways.

It pains me to have to give this miserable bastard the protection of our laws. But if we don't, we take those protections from everyone. As Sir Thomas More said:

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake, not for his!

But more importantly, I think our leadership has chosen to ignore the words of Friedrich Nietzsche:

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

You are a total moron, And Sherman's March was genocide. Hitler loved Good Germans like you.

If anyone ever read anything about Obama, other than his own self deifying garbage, they would know he is a dyed in the wool Communist, as is his wife, and they are slowly carefully planning the takeover of this country by fiat law and martial law, and the death list is growing day by day. I am sure my name is on it as one who opposes this creeping growth of totalitarianism. Watch Stalin, Man of Steel, some day, on the History Channel 2. You will see that history is in the very first stages of repeating itself, and it begins with lies , half truths, and deception by the very government we elected ( well, those of you who voted for him did, anyway). The Consititution is being slowly tested and dismantled on a daily basis and whole slews of idiots are gleefully and whole heartedly supporting it without understanding a whit of what they are doing. Wish everyone in the country could read these words and have an enlightened thought. The only way to stop it is to vote for someone who supports the Constitution and what it stands for, this coming election. Otherwise, it will be the last election you ever see in your lifetime. Remember, when Communism was established in Russia, in 1917, it took 80 years to live through the terrors of it and finally dismantle it. And now in a few short years, the very country ( US) that led in its demise, is helping it back into the drivers seat at ever increasing speed. Incredible.

Regardless of how you feel about the killing of al-Awlaki, this should be of serious concern to you. It is a very dangerous thing to allow for the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen by our own government. Do you really want to give one man the authority to declare that American citizen is a terrorist and order his killing?!?! I will not shed a single tear over the death of al-Awaki or anyone like him, but I still feel that what was done is wrong. This was a case of an American citizen being executed by our government without due process of law. This goes against everything our constitution stands for. We have a separation of powers in this country for good reason. The process by which al-Awlaki's killing was authorized and carried out violated that separation of powers, with the executive branch usurping the powers of the judiciary. Whether you agree with the end result or not, the means by which it was achieved should not be allowed to stand. There must be a procedure which includes a judicial review before any American can be put to death by the government.

Did the word WAR miss your attention in Civil War? The South voted themselves out of the Union. The Confederate Capitol, The Confederate President, the Confederate Army....were not part of the Union.

Your argument is weak and not worthy.

"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,"

So exactly what is 'due process' then?

Does 'due process' mean that the President can kill American citizens around the World simply by saying "I want that person killed"?

It sounds like a 'slippery slope'.

Mr. Holder and the rest of the DOJ obviously haven't been paying attention to the current bill passing through House and Senate. Called the Enemy Expatriation act, it'll strip US citizens (either natural-born or naturalized) of their citizenship if they are suspected of terrorism.

Mr. Holder, why face public outcry now over 'targeting American citizens?' Just wait until the EEA passes.

You won't have to justify incarcerating 'American citizens' to the country anymore; all you'll have to do is call them 'illegal terrorists' and Congress'll hand you all the money you want to take care of the problem. Homeland Security tried it and it worked great. All you have to do is call someone an illegal, whether they are or not, and that's carte blanche to do whatever you want to them.

Immigration lost my adoption paper 18 years after it was filed, I was never told i was aopted before my parents passed away-- so they tagged me as an illegal and put me in a deportation camp. Death threats from the guards, physical and sexual abuse, food and sleep deprivation--none of it was a crime because we were 'illegal' and they aren't held accountable.

Try it, Mr. Holder. I guarantee it'll work. It's how Homeland Security's budget went from $50 million in 2002 to $98 billion in 2011.

DoninPhnx. I think it was Will Rogers who said, "There is never any shortage of commonsense, so few people ever use it."

The Emily Post Rules of Etiquette you would have us apply to terrorists are akin to suggesting that one should approach a rabid animal ready to rip your throat out with "the benefit of the doubt"and try to reason with it and accord it the "rights" one might a healthy animal.

The Constitution was designed to protect us from the excesses of our own government within the confines of civilized society, yet we have rabidly liberal fools doing their damnest - as echoed in the inane remarks of the ACLU (why was I not surprised?) suggesting that the President is going to somehow start knocking off whomever he wishes. May hap you should take a good, long, deep drink from the commonsense fountain and begin to realize that you cannot waste time when you have "actionable" intelligence that someone is doing their best to implement a terrorist attack - with no regard whatsoever for anyone they kill or main - in fact the more heinous and horrific the happier these twisted bastards like it.

What is funny, is how Mr. Obama (one must begin to get used to calling him what he is going to be in a year or so); what is funny is how Mr. Obama changed his toon about drone strikes - among I am certain many other similar actions he had previously caste a jaundiced eye upon while looking down from the safety of his intellectually, left wing, divorced from reality observation post in his Ivory Tower that he gave voice to during his campaign. Of course, perhaps we should not be surprised that a dose of the real world and a chance to see - far more than any of us see - how despicable our enemies are has changed his opinion of what constitutes "acceptable" procedures.

But then, and here is another quote that might explain his suddenly "getting real" - at least to a small degree; this one was not by will Rogers, "Imminent death has an amazingly clarifying effect on the mind."

We are at war and if you think for a moment our enemies aren't doing their best to get a nuclear weapon or something equally devasting into the country, then you should hop back on that bannana boat you were born on and got off of yesterday.

Meanwhile none of you are being told about the standoff at Wanblee SD where the Lakota Nation is being denied the rights to their reservation borders in order to allow XL Pipline Reps to start working in there. It's happening right now. Lakota People have been arrested. State Troopers first sided with the Indians due to their knowledge of reservation law. Then the reps claimed they had authority that trumped law. Something they had convinced the police....hmmmmm.....wonder what it is? XL Pipeline expansion, another Bush era timebomb set to go off on the 99% as soon as the moles inside can make it so......

JD in SD: Agree with you 100% and NC open heart, these are the results.

I did not agree with the evil unconstitutional abuse of power under the Bush administration. And I do not agree with the evil unconstitutional abuse of power under the Obama administration. It is not enough that the documents be made public. The killing program must stop.

due process
Definition

NOUN

1. fundamental principles of justice: fundamental principles of justice as opposed to a specific rule of law

2. citizen's right to justice: the entitlement of a citizen to proper legal procedures and natural justice.

Seems like Holder has a loose interpretation of the first meaning of the term.

What crap.

There are two amendments that deal directly with the rights to trail by jury.

1. Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right there in the opening sentences it lays out that everyone (terrorist suspect or not) being held to answer for any capital or otherwise infamous crime (terrorist charges clearly falls in this category) must be held on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, unless they were actively in service in the military.

2. Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

This clearly states the due process for all criminal prosecutions is a speedy public trail, unless the administration is saying being a terrorist is not illegal and thus not a criminal act, but if that were the case they would have no cause to attack US citizens...

This is a good example of why empire is toxic to democracy and civil rights.

If you are an empire you have to meddle, force, invade, torture and kill people all over the globe to maintain your empire.

This causes many people around the world to fear and hate you and want to do you harm.

Because you have so many people who are out to attack you or resist you you don't have the "luxury" of maintaining democratic rights anymore eventually even in your own country.

Slowly bit by bit civil liberties and democratic protections are discarded in the name of "security" and "keeping the american people safe" because you are afraid of everyone else because they may want to hurt you.

Pretty soon you wake up and your "democratic republic" of laws is a thing of the past and you are in a dictatorship for all intents and purposes.

There are and always have been dangerous people around the world we have to guard against and sometimes go after but I think empire and the bad and getting worse gap between rich and poor in this country are the real threats to our freedom, standard of living and health.

Our drones are not equipped with a "pick them up and hand-cuff them" leash, nor a "read them their rights" loudspeaker. Is the Military obligated to go to extraordinary means, risking lives, to capture these suspects, in foreign countries, in order to turn them over to civil authorities? Are the suspects then subject to extradition procedures, or can they legally be simply turned over to civil authorities, in the USA, for trial? I can understand that if one of these citizen-turned-terrorist suspects turned themselves in, they should be offered protection and then they can be presumed innocent and the burden to prove them otherwise would fall to their prosecutors. For example, al Awlaki could have used his trial to portray himself as a "thinker" not a "doer", or to justify his actions.

Lots of innocents are killed in the conflicts and skirmishes of these many "wars". But for the instigators, we are to reserve special treatment and extend to them the dignity and importance we denied the innocents??? Maybe the due process we need is a hearing before they are targeted: were they only advocating violent actions or were they instigating, training and financially supporting the actors. In a "war" you don't normally evaluate the motivations of the poor unfortunates stuck on the front lines: they die on behalf of their cause. Most of them are innocent.

We are a government of laws not men. Due Process is there to protect anyone from being targeted just on the "say so" of another (even a President or a General). It is what prevents one neighbor from causing trouble for another. It is only on trust that I assume these citizens-turned-terrorist suspects were not targeted lightly, and were given judicious consideration by those executing these "wars".

The Wall Street bankers who crashed the economy in 2008 did more harm to the U.S. and it's people than Anwar al Awlaki probably ever dreamed and Holder hasn't done @!$%# to any of them.

Now the bankers are mostly up to their old tricks again (including mortgaged backed securities, credit default swaps etc) and sitting fat and happy on big piles of cash curtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Clark, you do realize the southern side thought they were following the intent of the constitution in regard to states rights.

That only approx, 30% of CSA soldiers owned slaves?

Some Northerners owned slaves to a much lesser extent, but still owned them. Until they found it far cheaper to call them employees.

That the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY affected certain counties in the divided loyalty states, and the states that the north was at war with.? In other words, It was a food production embargo , not some enlightened movement forward for mankind. In fact you may want to research some of Lincoln's campaign speeches vs Buchann

Before you start assuming it. My ancestors were N Irish. They fought on both sides. No Mason/Dixon preference.

Not a tear will form in my eyes for Awlaki dying. I hope he had many many like minded around him.

However, the so called Patriot Ac, and other compromises to our Constitution, are very dangerous.

Too dangerous for the Congress to just rubber stamp the process. It seems to be the only process they easily pass.

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, for this very reason. He knew the Constitution as well as anyone.

Yeah, he knew how to step all over it too.

The scope of whom the government can target is limited to citizens who are affiliated with Al Queda or related organizations. It is easy to infer from case law and precedent that the act of being affiliated with Al Queda is a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship, at the time of joining Al Queda.

"Under current federal law, any party claiming that a person has abandoned his U.S. citizenship must establish three elements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (2000) (text provided in the attached appendix). First, the person must take one of the statutorily enumerated acts of expatriation, such as "obtaining naturalization in" or "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state" after reaching the age of 18, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state . . . engaged in hostilities against the United States," or formal renunciation before an appropriate United States official. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). ⁽⁷⁾ Second, he must act "voluntarily." Id. See also Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 133 ("no conduct results in expatriation unless the conduct is engaged in voluntarily"). Third, he must act "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). ⁽⁸⁾ Expatriation occurs "at the time the expatriating acts were committed, not at the time his alienage was judicially determined." United States ex rel. Marks v. Esperdy, 315 F.2d 673, 676 (2nd Cir. 1963), affirmed by an equally divided court, 377 U.S. 214 (1964); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part.").

This fateful new step in our ever-expanding war against terrorists — intentionally killing an American citizen — is fraught with the danger of executive overreach or mistakes. But the Obama administration has done an admirable job to date of balancing these potential dangers against security imperatives.

The United States did not claim the power to kill Mr. Awlaki because of his political views or because he was a mere member of a Qaeda affiliate against which Congress had authorized the use of force. It claimed the power to kill him, rather, because he was an operational leader of a Qaeda affiliate that had been involved in terrorist plots on American soil and because he was hiding in a country that lacked the capacity to arrest him and bring him to justice.

Nor does the killing of Mr. Awlaki mean, as Glenn Greenwald charged in Salon, that “due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality.” An attack on an enemy soldier during war is not an assassination. During World War II, the United States targeted and killed Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Moreover, the United States knew there were many American citizens in the German Army during World War II, but it did not alter its bombing practices as a result.

And while no court approved the killing of Mr. Awlaki, it is not accurate to say that he was targeted without due process. What due process requires depends on context. In a lawsuit brought last year that sought to prevent the government from targeting Mr. Awlaki, a federal judge ruled that in wartime the Constitution left it to the president and Congress, not the courts, to decide military targeting issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/a-just-act-of-war.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp

It appears that Mr. Awlaki's case was adjudicated (that there was due process involved).

Lol Lonnie, you only have so many years on this earth, I truly hope that you don't waste too many more of them consumed by fear and paranoia. Contrary to the gloomy picture you paint this is still a free and open society and many thousands of its citizens examine the actions of the government at all times and very carefully. A massive conspiracy such as you describe is extremely unlikely to have survived through multiple administrations over decades.

The U.S. is loosing its moral way. We are not thinking with the right head and we don't have the right leaders and that especially includes Obama.

I can think of no candidate that has less experience in economics, leadership, accounting, politics, public awareness, charisma, intelligence or any aspect that a president should have.

Our freedoms are slowly being eroded and we are all being put in cells.

Obama spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and nothing has actually been accomplished. No pro western governments have been establish and he is dithering and dawdling on Syria and Iran.

We can not give Pakistan 2 billion dollars, we can not give Eqypt 1.3 billion dollars and we cannot give North Korea 240,000 tons of food.

Obama is a fake, a fraud and a fool.

He has absolutely no concept about Syria and Iran and will be known as the American Chamberlain.

"It's better for four guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned,"

NC Openheart. I searched for news regarding the standoff at Wanblee SD. Based on what I could find, a handful of protesters, looked relatively benign, one of two things are at play;

1) characterizing this as a standoff is an exaggeration

2) there is a conspiracy by the media to squelch this story

I am really interested in finding more about this story, can you post a link to a credible news source?

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I think if our forefathers had any concept of terrorism then, as it is now - that would also be right alongside 'cases of rebellion or invasion'. The argument could also well be made that an American citizen joining a terrorist organization could be considered a case of rebellion. I agree that there should be some enumerated official procedure and guidelines for making such a determination, is there not such a thing?



It sounds like a 'slippery slope'

Which is defined as a logical fallacy unless it can be demonstrated that slipping is likely to occur and that mediation is unlikely.

Regardless of how you feel about the killing of al-Awlaki, this should be of serious concern to you. It is a very dangerous thing to allow for the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen by our own government. Do you really want to give one man the authority to declare that American citizen is a terrorist and order his killing?!?! I will not shed a single tear over the death of al-Awaki or anyone like him, but I still feel that what was done is wrong.

Would you have rather waited until a school here packed with kids, shopping mall or a hospital was blown up to take this guy out?

Obama spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and nothing has actually been accomplished. No pro western governments have been establish and he is dithering and dawdling on Syria and Iran.

This sounds like a contradiction. First, you complain that he spent money in Iraq/Afghanistan.... wars he didn't start, and one which is over, by the way. Then you complain about 'no pro western governments' when that mess was long established well before his presidency - he's not a wizard ffs. Then immediately following such innane criticisms, you complain that he hasn't yet gone to war in Syria or Iran? Really?

OBAMA HATERS UNITE! That's what I hear after I read at least 25 posts! "He is against OUR Constituition. etc, etc, etc". GIVE IT A BREAK! This man was killed in Yemen, not the United States. This man was advocating violence against the UNITED STATES. So what is the difference from this Al Qaida leader to a foreign born Al Qaida leader? They both are doing the same thing! Just like the Ameican in Iraq that we captured. If we didn't capture him, his butt would be DEAD! We didn't go looking for him to capture. He just so happen to surrender. How do we know that any of the other Iraqis that we mowed down in those two wars weren't American born? I don't think we asked any of them, "Do you have your SS card?" or "Where is your birth certificate?". Like another poster said, "YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN WHEN YOU BECOME A TRAITOR!" The hatred has got to stop. This is why America has become a laughing stock. WE NEVER SUPPORT ANY PRESIDENT! From Reagan up to Obama, I have supported MY PRESIDENT! If you didn't like what they were saying, you voted them out and their support group! That's the democratic way!

Plain and simple: terrorists must be delivered to justice. And in cases when it is not practicable (regardless of why it is not practicable) justice must be delivered to the terrorists. If the most practicable mode of delivery is a hellfire missile, then be it.

and lets make this clear one more time: obama is the best republican president since lincoln.

"practicable"? Is that even a word? If an alleged "terrorist" is a US citizen, you capture him and bring him to trial. The argument that this is difficult, doesn't mean anything. The difficulty is the price we said that we were willing to bear. let's live by our word and deeds in respecting our Constitution.

Paul: practicable is certainly a word. Don't you think Newsviners have better things to do than to serve as your personal dictionary? I do agree with the spirit of your post.

I think if our forefathers had any concept of terrorism then, as it is now - that would also be right alongside 'cases of rebellion or invasion'. The argument could also well be made that an American citizen joining a terrorist organization could be considered a case of rebellion. I agree that there should be some enumerated official procedure and guidelines for making such a determination, is there not such a thing?

Actually, our forefathers had full knowledge in the concept of terrorism at the time of their writing the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What was not given at the time is the word "terrorism" to the concept. The word "terrorism" was originally given to mean any violent action against non-military persons by a group of non-military personal in direct conflict against an established government of the first group. Seeing as our forefathers were those who rebelled against the King of England and his government at the time and who had killed the Kings soldiers, those soldiers families, and any one that supported the English government, that would have made them "terrorist" at the time. A "terrorism" has many synonyms to it. Some are guerrillas, rebels, freedom fighters, or forefathers of a new nation. It all depends on a person's point of view and who wins in the conflict.

Richard: Indeed. George Washington and his Continental Army (and, for that matter, the Minutemen) were the terrorists of their day. I define terrorism as a non-state person or persons commiting violence against targets which they could not hope to best or damage significantly through traditional military means. The Minutemen erased the distinction between civilians and soldiers. The Continental Army dressed in camouflage and set up position behind trees to shoot at British soldiers dressed in redcoats and marching in formation in open fields. We now generally accredit these tactics as genius, as bringing warfare into a more modern age, as creating the conditions for a smaller, poorly trained and equipped American army to be able to beat the best military in the world.

Similarly, we today adopt tactics we used to condemn in others. In WWII, Churchill called the German v-rockets "robot bombs" and said that their use was "cowardly" as those launching the bombs were in no danger whatsoever from those on whom the bombs were falling. Today, we call such things Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and drones. We think they are "smart bombs" and congratulate ourselves for using weapons which inflict harm and damage on others without putting ourselves at risk.

I'd ask anyone following the conversations on this post: if YOU were Iran or Afghanistan, wouldn't you pursue strategies which would allow you to have leverage over the Americans? Wouldn't YOU choose to fight according to rules which give you a chance to win rather than their rules by which you would certainly lose?

Recently a person whose political beliefs are quite different from mine tried to distinguish the US from al Qaeda by saying, "Well, we don't fly aircraft into buildings." I asked her, "What do you call Cruise Missiles if not aircraft and what are their targets if not buildings?"

Recently a person whose political beliefs are quite different from mine tried to distinguish the US from al Qaeda by saying, "Well, we don't fly aircraft into buildings." I asked her, "What do you call Cruise Missiles if not aircraft and what are their targets if not buildings?"

dslsca, great post. And it is funny you bring up this quoted point in your post. Because I was thinking of another comparison. What is the difference between this statement (and recent actions this last year) by Eric Holder and the Obama Administration versus the current actions of the Syrian government against its on citizens? On face value, the only defense seems to be one of scale, IMO.

So you are saying we can assassinate whoever we wish worldwide without care whether there are innocent men, women or children involved, permanently?

There were plenty of Nazis captured and guess what? They got due process - some were executed, some given life sentences. The Nazis just rounded people up - no process. That is what made us the good guys in the first place, remember? We are supposed to be on the side of justice, not anarchy.

Oh and by the way, the Taliban is at war with us because we are occupying their country. Does that make them terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers? Are terrorist sympathizers allowed to be assassinated too?

First of all the Taliban don't have a country, they're an organization.

Secondly, The Nazis that were tried weren't defending their positions, they had already surrendered (a nice little fun fact is that soldiers on the Eastern front were fleeing to the western front to surrender to the Americans and British because Russians don't take prisoners) This guy would have gotten a trial by the U.N. and then the U.S. if he had surrendered

and thirdly, why do you think we spend so much money on precision weapons, because the world and the U.S. got sick of total war and killing civilians, a single JDAM system can go for about $100,000, all because once again the U.S. is being too nice in a war and still being regarded as Nazis, murderers, facists, jews, and the list goes on....

Rag on head, bullet in head.

Silly argument if you ask me.. This guy openly denounced his citizenship several time publicly through the media and openly stated that he was all for planning and killing Americans where ever they could be found.. He was also not in this country so in my opinion deserved what he got.. Nowhere in this action of federal authority did or do they allow this to happen on US soil to US citizens so the NAZI or dictator Bull $hit is just hot air.. If we could go back in time and have the president authorize the assassination of Hitler or Tojo and their goon squads and save countless millions of lives in the process these a$$holes from the ACLU would be suing the government for wrongful deaths and for the president overstepping his office..

Being a 'terrorist' these days isn't just about radical muslim/extremists. Have you seen the full list of what Homeland Security considers terrorism indicators lately?

Alternative media

Anarchist extremism

Animal rights extremism

Anti-abortion extremism

Anti-immigration extremism

Anti-technology extremism

Aryan prison gangs

Black bloc

Black nationalism

Black power

Black separatism

Christian Identity movement

Cuban independence extremism

Decentralized terror movement

Denial-of-service attacks

Direct action (including lawful acts of civil disobedience)

Environmental extremism

Ethnic extremism

Extremist groups

Green anarchism

Hacktivism (technology-enabled social/political activism)

Hate groups

Jewish extremism

Leaderless resistance

Left-wing extremism

Lone terrorists

Mexican separatists

Militia Movements (including conspiracy theorists)

Neo-Nazis

Patriot Movement

Phineas Priesthood

Primary targeting(directly supporting/funding terrorists)

Puerto Rican independence extremists

Radical Norse mysticism practitioners

Racialists

Right-wing extremists

Single-issue/multiple issue extremist groups

Skinheads whose ‘dress may include shaved head/short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens and a bomber jacket’

Sovereign citizen movement

Tax resistance movement

Violent anti-war extremism

Violent religious sects (includes those who stockpile food and weapons)

White Nationalists

White Power advocates

White Supremacists

know1 said: Rag on head, bullet in head

Does your support of genocide and/or holocaust apply only to Muslims with turbans and Jews with kippas, or do you support a more general genocide?

Amanda 2017567, can you please tell me where you got that very interesting list? Is this a partial list from Homeland Security?

It reminds me of that Tom Cruse movie where crimes are anticipated and punished before they are committed.

Someday, one may be a terrorist, if one has any thoughts at all.

Until that day, please contact your Senators to support amendments to NDAA that would exempt American citizens from indefinite military detention.

We must rise up in a non-partisan way to save our civil rights, which should be precious to us all without exception. These rights (habeas corpus) are the social institutions that make the US the greatest experiment in government mankind has ever undertook.

We Must Not Waste Our Liberties in the name of fear.

Quote of an article published on 31 December 2010:

Now a single tip about a terror link will be enough for inclusion in the watch list for U.S. security officials, who have also evolved a quicker system to share the database of potential terrorists among screening agencies; a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said that officials have now “effectively in a broad stroke lowered the bar for inclusion” in the list; the new criteria have led to only modest growth in the list, which stands at 440,000 people, about 5 percent more than last year; also, instead of sending data once a night to the Terrorist Screening Center’s watch list, which can take hours, the new system should be able to update the watch list almost instantly as name are entered.

Now a single tip about a terror link will be enough for inclusion in the watch list for U.S. security officials, who have also evolved a quicker system to share the database of potential terrorists among screening agencies.

The master watch list of individuals with suspected links to terrorism is used to screen people seeking to obtain a visa, cross a U.S. border, or board a plane in or destined for the United States. Officials say they have made it easier to add individuals’ names to the watch list and improved the government’s ability to thwart terrorist attacks, the Washington Post reported.

Timothy Healy, director of the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the master list, said the new guidelines balance the protection of Americans from terrorist threats with the preservation of civil liberties....

Enjoy.

They're already using that "terroristic threat" charge for middle and high schoolers. Here's just one of many stories you can easily find with Google: 10-year-old charged with making terroristic threat

But as you can plainly see he is now in the US legal system.. Terrorism has become a catch word for violent criminal behavior in the media.. Nowhere in that article do they claim the child was going to do an act of religious Jihad although he did threaten violence which I believe is threatened assault.. So you combine verbal cliche's spoken by teachers or some manner of civil law enforcement and think the military or CIA are going to shoot the kid?? They had a big rash of profiling all blacks as militants and anyone riding a motorcycle as part of a biker gang but we seem to have grown up since then so why don't you.. They killed a bad guy that most of the world believes we are far better off without except the lawyers who wanted the fees for defending this scum..

I believe the count was they killed a guy (bad guy yes), his driver (who was a bloggest on a website), and bad guy's 16-year old son.

I agree that CSX321 example would be a little extreme for what Holder's recent states would lead too, but I would point out that another example would be:

Bloggest who makes statements against the current establishment for which that establishment does not like or find inconvenient (maybe about the use of oil or coal). That Bloggest gets a following of like-minded Twitter followers who further protests in a more violent way by throwing rocks at people or setting buildings on fire. It is decided that he is actively in "operational command" of the followers terrorist actions and drops a Hellfire missile on his Ford Volt. Greenpeace! :)

Yes, I realize my example was extreme. But I simply picked one of the first results from the search; there were many. This is the police and other authorities using the term, not the media. One of the top results was an official document defining "terroristic threat" as:

threatening to commit violence or harm to any person or property with intent to cause an emergency response or that places any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or interrupting the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, or place to which the public has access by threats of violence or other means, or causing impairment or interruption of public communications; public transportation; the public water, gas, or power supply; or other public service

That's an insanely broad definition. Any type of protest could fall under that. Shouting at a school board meeting could fall under that. It makes the term meaningless to define it so broadly. A definition like that seems like an authoritarian power-grab. Certainly it's one far too easy to abuse.

CXS...you are grasping at straws to say that any type of protest falls under this law....Read the first sentence it says it all..."threatening to commit violence or harm to any person or property with intent to cause an emergency response..." Without these four words you have no terrorist threat. So a peaceful demonstration would not apply. Yelling at a PTA meeting would not fall under this definition...

"OR...interrupting the use of a room...to which the public has access by...other means"

Read it again carefully.

Like chaining oneself to a door as to prevent someone from entering a building?

I would also point out as to back up CSX321 point is that it is not often those that originally created the law or ruling that end up abusing it. It is those that follow after the fact for which use the law because a precedent was already set. So the even if President Obama is the next anointed saint (which I firmly believe he is not) and will not abuse this type of thing, I am fairly sure that someone will come along who WILL abuse it if such a thing is allow to stand. Can we honestly say that all of us would feel all warm and fuzzy inside of the next Nixon, Bush Jr, McCarthy, or Cheney that comes along and had this ruling in their arsenal and it being the one that the "Messiah" gave them?

"OR...interrupting the use of a room...to which the public has access by...other means""...and ...."Like chaining oneself to a door as to prevent someone from entering a building"...are both clear acts of civil disobedience and are not terrorist threats.......a little more common sense and a little less fear mongering...

I have since found that the passage I quoted is actually a part of the Texas Penal Code. So, no, it's not just civil disobedience. It is now, officially, a "terroristic threat" to do those things in Texas. It's just wrong that the law could even conceivably be interpreted to define a terrorist as somebody causing trouble at a PTA meeting. You keep downplaying it, but even if common sense says it shouldn't be interpreted that way, that's what the words of the law say.

In my opinion, the term "terrorism" should be reserved for organized violence with a political aim. Anything else is just crime. Or legitimate protest and civil disobedience, as you say.

Again you must read the first line of the penalcode...

"Texas Penal Code - Section 22.07. Terroristic Threat

§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

Without the treat of violence to any person or property...it is just civil disobedience...

LoneRanger01:

Yes, you're right about the Texas Penal Code version. I apologize. The way it's worded there is clear. The way it was misquoted in some of the other policy documents is ambiguous and should be corrected. The one I posted was an exact quote from a high school district policy, which said it was copied from the Texas Penal Code. Apparently it was not quite copied correctly!

I do still think the term "terroristic" is being misused in all of these cases.

CSX...I would like to thank you for your honesty, and you have gained my complete trust and respect.... That being said I agree that the laws may very well be abused. Not to the extent that some people would like to believe...And I think it is our job to question these abuses as we find out about them, and I don't think and will never believe anyone is above the law...

Thanks. My short bio here on Newvine is "Willing to admit I could be wrong." :) Although I don't think it shows up anywhere, since I haven't seeded any articles.

I'm not a native Texan and don't live there now, but I spent the middle third of my life in Texas, and two of our children were born there, so I'll probably always have a special interest in things related to Texas.

and you should be on point on every patrol

MyGirl, he signed it into law because iuf he did not it would have been used against him by the Right and his veto would not matter because it had more then enough votes to be passed via Congressional bypass. You only need 3/4ths the vote to override a Presidential veto.

However there are still some implications, as you stated, about motives of those that drafted the law and their connection to Obama signing it. For sure most of the members in Congress are no longer acting in our best interests.

Mygirl1 you are thinking too much. Better to bend over and take a good shot of Obamacare and let Big Daddy Barack do all the thinking. You know what happens to dissenters and those the government deems to be terrorists. Better cool it before you are placed on Obama's hit list.

What concerns me most about the paranoia created by endless wars is that in 15 years we have gone from impeaching a President for getting a BJ to allowing a Congress and President to strip our rights out of the Constitution.

And while people are willing to march on Washington to stop them from interfering with the internet, we allow a President to demand that he have the authority to detain Americans, or anyone else in the world for that matter, indefinitely. If it weren't for the paranoia, I believe both Congress and the President would be up on charges of "abuse of authority" and "perjury of oath", both high crimes.

I have to wonder, in the future, what will be considered terroristic and how it will be defined. If it will be defined as my voicing an opinion against my government, Have I not lost my right to free speech? If I have lost my right to free speech, have I not lost my right to protest illegal search and seizure? If I have lost my right to free speech, have I not lost my right to practice my religion of choice? All of these rights are contingent upon having the right to due process, and I have serious concerns that people in this country simply don't care about what they are losing.

I know this is a comment from up above, but I am simply tired of all the comments being collapsed for no reason.

The NDAA was signed by all republicans and a few democrats. I would think you republicans would be ecstatic after trying so hard to get the NDAA passed after we had already downgraded your Patriot's Act.

Geowill: It was an egregious overreach and destruction of civil rights. If Obama had any sense of decency he would have vetoed it, he is, after all, a 'constitutional scholar' and a more unconstitutional law other than the Patriot Act, has never been written. Don't believe the nonsense that he 'had' to sign it, that is an outright lie.

David: You had better watch out as well. This is scary beyond belief on a number of levels. What is even scarier is how many 'Americans' support this monstrosity. They are willingly throwing away their constitutional rights, they honestly believe this is going to 'protect' them from the evils of terrorism, and they are apparently brainwashed enough to not understand the underlying implications of this enormous overreach of power..

Mike: Hate to burst your bubble, but the NDAA was approved by an overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans. Ditto the Patriot Act. Seems the only time our 'warring parties' can come together is when they all agree to destroy the civil rights of Americans. Note as well that the congress has overwhelmingly agreed to curtail the right of groups to gather and protest. That happened under the radar (again and as usual) just recently.

By pitting citizen against citizen, party against party, they are eroding not only the constitution but the bill of rights out of existence as well. It will happen because there are extremists on both sides that simply want to eradicate the party on the other side regardless of what methods they have to use to do so.

Geowil said:

MyGirl, he signed it into law because iuf he did not it would have been used against him by the Right and his veto would not matter because it had more then enough votes to be passed via Congressional bypass. You only need 3/4ths the vote to override a Presidential veto.

However there are still some implications, as you stated, about motives of those that drafted the law and their connection to Obama signing it. For sure most of the members in Congress are no longer acting in our best interests.

Think about who is going to benefit from indefinite detention of 'illegal terrorists'. Who stands to gain the most? Who's going to profit?

An agency called 'Homeland Security' was created in the aftermath of 9-11. It started out in 2002 as an offshoot branch of US Customs & Immigration Services (USCIS) with a modest budget of $50 million.

9 years later in 2011, their budget has swelled to $98 billion and they've absorbed such agencies like FEMA, the Coast Guard, USCIS, ICE, CBP. Other component divisions include the Office of Civil Rights & Liberties and the Office of Legislative Affairs. The Secret Service now also answers to Homeland Security even in matters like guarding the President and his family.

If Homeland Security was behind a bill that was put in front of the President, would the President sign it because the people behind it were also responsible for the safety of his family...?

And on an interesting note, Speaker of the House John Boehner recently asked Congress if his 33 person Homeland Security Oversight Committee could have sole oversight of Homeland security, the purpose being to streamline the reporting process so DHS only has to report to one Congressional panel.

Hello whatsnext, I am (used to be?) a democrat/independant who voted for Obama, but I am appalled at his signing of the NDAA. I don't buy the excuses/rationales. Instead, I have written to my Senators (Feinstein and Boxer) to push them to amend the act. If every voter from all political stances takes the time to do this, the Act will be amended. I have also written to Obama. In all cases, I got a form letter back. I am also supporting the ACLU. If nothing is done, pretty soon I will be womanning the barricades with the OWS people. And I'm a tired old lady who remembers the McCarthy hearings. Not a legacy I want to leave to my grandchildren.

All you people that don't like this, you need to find the candidate that is against this and VOTE FOR HIM!He is out there.

Feinstein is a nut job who wanted even more power to be in this act.. That would be like asking the Devil to be a bit nicer.. She wants to disarm America and make the government all powerful.. She is also flagged as an insider trader and a penny stock recipient from corporate supporters.. If you go outside this country and consort with enemy combatants to kill I hope they drop a missile on your butt too.. As far as it reads you have to be a pretty bad SOB and a lot of other stipulations to warrant a presidential OK stamp on a death warrant.. I think the Patriot act was worse for us than this.. By threatening open rebellion you are playing into their hands from your point of view.. Better to petition and speak against big government controls and perks along with vote vote vote them out.. Crooked politicians and their self serving crooked ways must go ASAP..

Sorry, RoanrunnerO, Feinstein has already tried to get an amendment to ndaa passed, but it failed in the Senate by ten votes.

Please talk to your Senators, to vote yes for the next bill that she is putting forth on this matter. If all of us concerned to maintain civil liberties for ourselves do this, we will not have to worry about the knock on the door at 2am.

As for her behavior in the financial realm, well, get your Senator to vote yes on the bills that are explicitly banning insider trading for members of Congress. I don't like that either, but I don't worry that I could be "detained" because congresspeople are enriching themselves in unethical ways.

If we are going to change the system, we have to do something. EG, Rush Limbaugh prompted to "apologize" by activism. It's a small thing, but maybe portends a sleeping giant about to awake, like the Arab Spring.

We can do more than hope.

... they directly state "... can legally be targeted in a foreign country...

Any military operation targeting a citizen overseas must be carried out consistent with the law of war. "

Not to say this isn't quite frightening...

Yeah, why not?

matt are we at war with yemen? isnt that where this guy was killed?????

Matt, what is stop them from say "can be targeted anywhere"?

This is all in layman's terms for you conspiracy folks..

WE are at war with extremists foreign and domestic everywhere they congregate to plot death and destruction on American citizens.. If they were in the US or its territories they would be arrested by law enforcement personnel and given a civilian trial which I might add has been done numerous times.. If during the attempted arrest they resisted with violent deadly force their rights are forfeit and at the discretion of the officers involved deadly force may be used.. After such an event of deadly force a review and investigation would take place on public record.. If said combatants are in a foreign country who refuse the rule of international law or willfully allow the illegal activity enforcement must be authorized by presidential order and carried out by US armed forces personnel.. Cooperating governments such as in the above stated case authorize US military personnel to conduct operations to eliminate enemy combatants but refuse to assist in their capture is considered complying with current international law.. Cooperating governments can also at their own discretion arrest and try these people or extradite them to the US for trial.. Any person committing hostile actions against the US military or citizens or installations such as bases or consulates or embassies outside the borders or territories of the US is considered an enemy combatants and subject to the rules of war and may be detained without trial indeffenitaly or till the end of hostilities.. This is the part that gets sticky the detainment should have a time limit or the accused should be judged by a military tribunal.. This let them rot clause stinks and I bitched about it to my senators before they tweaked and voted.. So unless you plan something like this and do it outside the US you do not have to worry about your civil rights.. They may have added or left in the part about plotting and or inciting hostilities but I forgot.. Since the US and the UN are the primary enforcers of international law this makes sense.. What you really have to worry about is the US authorizing foreign governments to take you out.. This international law can swing both ways so I would not be making death threats to the rulers of any country friendly with the US government..

Oh for you who do not know what rule of war means >> shoot on sight or take prisoner at the discretion of the personnel involved.. Once taken prisoner during an undeclared war you are not accorded the rules of the Geneva convention which are guidelines for open military conflicts just like ununiformed combatants during WW2..

Yes, about time someone takes command and takes positive action against those who want to harm Americans. How would you react if a bomb kills 200 people in a NY subway? Desperate times call for desperate measures, unfortunately.

The same way I felt about 9-11 no big deal to me, I don't live there.

Funny how quickly the liberals are willing to forfeit the rights of US Citizens, but they whine and moan about the GITMO detainees/

Given that Republicans hate present-day American in general and urban liberals in particular, do you really expect him to be upset if that happened?

Funny how quickly the liberals are willing to forfeit the rights of US Citizens, but they whine and moan about the GITMO detainees/

As I recall the Republicans were the ones who rammed indefinite detention and extrajudicial murder down our throats, but this liberal has been consistently against this and the GITMO bs.

Lots of people are making judgements about something they have not read themselves but are riding the inflammatory express of other misinformed people.. You have more to worry about some foreign government declaring you a terrorist and them sending troops here to kill you.. So I would not threaten the governments of any foreign country and get on their terrorist list because a point of international law has been declared and the door swings both ways..

The Founding Father of the United States were "traitors." Frequently, true patriots are labeled as traitors...

"The Founding Father of the United States were "traitors." "

And the Brits would have hung them had they found them. Your analogy works.

The Brits DID hang many--Nathan Hale, for example.

Why? It's never been out of print.

yeah, and the poor black guy never does anything wrong. i'm black so therefore i'm entitled. what a dumbass you are

This is just another expansion of the methodology of war. It used to be 'uncivilized and against international law' for normal submarine warfare. The requirements that were initially applied to submarine engagements were absurd. Now - it is normally accepted practice. Machine guns also used to be 'uncivilized and illegal'. Not so much anymore.

Same with enemy combatants. If you choose to wage war against the USA - it really doesn't matter what your country of origin. The US Government can choose to kill you from 20,000 feet. If you don't like it - don't start the war.

War is hell, and any country that does not update their rules of engagement to keep up with the threat tends to lose. I personally don't want to live in the country now known as the conquered Islamic Republic that used to be known as America.

While I agree that being a US citizen doesn't make one bulletproof on a battlefield, I was unaware that a state of war exists between the US and Yemen.

But, as a US citizen they are entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers - even if traitors. This is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

It is one thing if they are killed in battle as an enemy combatant, quite another to have a hit put out on them without due process.

terror bird - Are we, or were we at war with Yemen???? Isn't that where this guy was targeted? If so, your post doesn't mean squat..........

We are not at war with Yemen. We are not at war with Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran either. The Afghans are our allies. Our enemies are Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They exist in all of the mentioned countries and more. Just because our primary area of operations is in Afghanistan does not limit us to targeting our enemies there. Just as while we fought alongside the French in France against the Nazis didn't limit us to killing Nazis only in France. We attacked them wherever they were. An enemy combatant was in Yemen and posed a significant threat. We eliminated that threat. It pushes the rules of engagement a bit, but it is hardly different than a sniper taking out an idle enemy during WWII or the Vietnam War. Only the sniper has wings and shoots missiles instead of bullets.

TerrorB: I seem to remember it was kind of a big deal when Nixon expanded the combat arena of the Vietnam War to include Cambodia and Laos. Fact is, we can't just shoot up people anywhere, anytime and say, Oh we're at war so there are no rules.

War has rules. I mentioned the rules of engagement. In the end it's just a delicate dance of what you can get away with and if the risk is worth the reward. Taking out an enemy commander at the risk of a strongly worded reprimand from the Yemeni people is a small price to pay for the safety of hundreds if not thousands of innocent Americans.

There were no high priority targets that could be reached in the Vietnam war. There were hardly any high priority targets in Vietnam at all. Anwar al Awlaki was a high priority target just as Osama bin Laden was and just as Ayman al Zawahiri is. Any time the military has the location of a high priority target and the resources to take them out without shedding the blood of civilians they are duty bound by their purpose to take them out. The purpose of the military is to protect the civilians. Lopping off the head off of the enemy saves lives on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised if al-Zawahiri was found in Iran and we bombed him to kingdom come despite tensions there.

I guarantee that if we had drones in 1941 we would have shoved a predator missile down Hitler's throat and it wouldn't have mattered if he was in Germany, America, Japan, England, Timbuktu, or Papua New Guinea. Our enemies' commanders are always the military's top priority. If we can take them out it is in our best interest to do so, even if they are American citizens.

Now, no one in this article or anywhere else is saying it's okay to target and take out American citizens for being associated or even actively participating in terrorist organizations. But if they pose a significant threat to the population then they deserve that predator missile specially delivered to their skull.

TerrorB: Yep. al-Awlaki's teenage US citizen son (killed in an entirely separate drone attack) posed "a significant threat to the population," didn't he?

As an active member of Al Qaeda, yes, I would mark him as a significant threat. And even if he himself posed no real threat, the other half-dozen Al Qaeda members killed in the strike certainly did. Confirmed kill at best, collateral damage at worst. If you want to live you probably shouldn't stand next to people who you know are armed terrorists.

And when exactly did congress declare war against the world again?

I agree with you 100%, Terror Bird! Those who hate Obama read this, and assume he is taking over the United States. I haven't heard or seen in Obama's 3 years where the military stormed into an American's house and took them out!(Unless you are saying OBL was American) There are terror groups in America, people, that hate the government! Remember Tim McVeigh? Haven't seen too many drone attacks against his terror group lately? John Hancock, Congress declared war against the world after 9/11. Even after the killing of OBL, Americans want us to attack more of the world. Not unless you don't count Iran, Syria, or North Korea in your world!

TerrorB: surely even you can see the logical contradiction in your statment (which I mark with boldface to show the contradiction): "As an active member of [al] Qaeda, yes, I would mark him as a significant threat. And even if he himself posed no real threat. . ."

Do you have even a sliver of evidence that this child was "an active member of al Qaeda"??????????????

Also, I'm going to give you a little grammar lesson here, but my point isn't to demonstrate some superiority in knowledge of language but to alert you to the potential consequences of what you've written. You write, "As an active member of [a]l Qaeda, yes, I. . ." For the meaning I think you want your sentence to have this is a dangling construction. As you've written it, however, it literally says that YOU are a member of al Qaeda. So, with the government claiming the ability to murder US citizens without warrant, merely on suspicion, if I were you, I'd be a little worried that posting a statment on a public forum which literally says you are an al Qaeda member might get you killed without your having the opportunity to say to a judge, "Come on! It was just a grammatical error."

If you really believe that the military can and will kill anyone without just cause (or as an extension thereof I.E. collateral damage) then you keep wearing that tin foil hat and hide in your bunker in your backyard.

Note the qualifier "if" in my sentence. I am saying he posed a threat. The military likely believed this, too. But the "if" refers to the off-chance that he did not. There is no question the combatants around him were active threats. If the whelp was not a member, then why was he in a group of nearly a dozen al Qaeda members? I stress again, if you want to live you probably shouldn't stand next to people who you know are armed terrorists.

The military takes great care to follow the chain of command and to operate in accordance with international law when executing operations. To be deemed a significant and imminent threat to national security great enough to have the military target you, then you are almost certainly not in the United States. We have police power to apprehend suspects within our borders and only an extreme case of imminence would constitute deadly force within out borders. Such an imminence as being actively armed or have a ready ability to inflict harm. No one cries when an armed gunman or bomber is shot dead by police. Period.

For the military to target a US citizen they have to be overseas. On domestic land the task falls to homeland security and police forces. Good old bureaucracy, you know. Only an active US citizen that is a member of a terrorist organization and overseas at the time will be targeted by the military, and only those whose location is known and that location is capable of being attacked by our military. We have warrant to execute, and I cannot stress this enough, current members of al Qaeda and the Taliban (enemy forces). Since we are not at war with any other terrorist organization, we cannot execute a military strike against any of them unless there is an executive order or dire imminence. Once again, no one is going to complain when someone armed with a bomb gets killed.

Learn domestic and international law and the many interpretations thereof.

TerrorB: Learn that the government is capable of error and of lying.

TerrorB is obviously not a student of history. American history. McCarthy, Japanese internment camps, syphillis tests on unwitting black farmers, soldiers exposed to radiation during tests, (used as guinea pigs) Anyone who remembers the Cold War or who listens to those who state 'the ends justifies the means' might want to take a step back from trusting the government. They haven't been too forthright over many things. I forgot the Bonusers, the poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition, forcing people to give up their gold during the depression, Iran-contra and currently, Fast and Furious.

Left out Kent State.

Wake up people ....... liberal or conservative you have got to see this is a very bad very scary policy. At first we complain then we forget then we accept and then the next little piece of are liberty is stripped away . Then before you no it you have no liberty and Big Brother controls every aspect of your life and THEN it hits you..... Good morning comrade .

crow....dude, you need to stop, take a deep breath and step back away from the caffeine...

TerrorBird:

I'm sure many German people under Hitler believed about that government's soldiers what you believe about this government's soldiers.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war."
"Naturally, the common people don't want war.... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Do those words sound familiar to you? They should, especially since you're applying them. Even worse, our government has been applying them for far too long. Think about who said those words and withdraw your "tinfoil hat" accusation.

I agree and Screw the ACLU the man is on foreign soil fighting for the enemy he has no rights

he is the enemy glad they killed him and hope they kill some more maybe we can send these bleeding heart ACLU lawyers to where the next airstrike is going to be

So tired of the arguments like TSA no one wants a kid patted down the Terrorists are scum enough to use a small child to hide a bomb Better yet lets just stop all security checks back to Pre 9/11 and let them bomb us again and then we will be crying the same old song " why didn't we know? Why don;t we have better security? Why are we profiling Muslem's" America never learns from their mistakes

matadorm: "let[']s just stop all security checks back to Pre 9/11 and let them bomb us again"?? Exactly when did the 9/11 terrorists "bomb" us??????

dslsca, they used bombs to take the planes

Well, no. They used box cutters.

Bull

They did bomb us in 1993 at the WTC. Same group it was determined!

No, none of the 9/11 hijackers had anything to do with the 1993 WTC incident.

The NYCFBI office was well aware ahead of time that the "Muslims" were going to bomb the WTC in 1993. They had an informant on the inside of the Yousef group.

dslsca: he said it was the same group, not the same members of that group. Al Qaeda has more than 19 members.

johninpa

so very very very true...

baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I think that makes the US Justice department a terror group. Holder should shoot himself in the interest of national security.

I've seen some weird comments on these sites; but, for Americans to fight for traitors is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. The GOP has lowered the bar so only snakes can crawl under it. Americans fight for America or DIE doing so and we don't care where you are and you forfeited your American Rights the Second you took up ideologies that are against our Country and its people....Period!

It is not worth commenting on.

the issue is that they can assassinate you on "suspicions" of terrorism. So lets say you posted on facebook "i wish my boss would just go die" next time you step out of the country the U.S. can kill you for "suspected terrorism" before you even do anything and with absolutely no proof that you have any connection with terrorism.

@Jim, there's a fine line between a direct threat of harm to oneself or another in the police case you cited. I have a feeling the way the military might use this is more along the lines of, "Well, this guy might do X, so let's kill him now." Not the immediate threat, but rather, more along the lines of pre-emptive.

Actually Jim, a police officer cannot simply kill someone at any time. THEY MUST HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. IF a police officer tells me to freeze and I do, even though I have a gun on me, he cannot shoot me. If he did, he would be charged with a crime.

Let me help clarify that for you. Probable cause has nothing to do with the implementation of deadly force.

Probable cause is used to determine if the facts and evidence would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe a specific crime has been comitted and a specific person/s are involved, which then leads to arrest and prosecution. Anything short of Probable Cause is only reasonable suspicion and does not support an arrest.

The use of deadly force is used by any police officer when there exists an immediate and obvious threat of death or GBI (gross bodily injury) to himself or others in the immediate vicinity. In rare exceptions deadly force can be used to stop a non combative unarmed suspect fleeing if the officers can articulate that the suspects escape would place the public is serious harm and result in additional deaths and or BGI to citizens. Such as an identified serial killer or bomb maker with a provable history of violence against the community.

No Jim they can not. If a police officer walks up to you and shoots you dead becasue they think you were going to commit a crime, hell even if you did commit a crime there would be serious reprecussions for them. If you are pointing a gun at them, threatening them (or someone else) that is a different issue.

This is a dangerous slope that the POTUS has taken us down. It will not be too long until certain groups are declared terrorists and can be executed on american soil with no trial, etc... So while today it may be americans overseas helping out religious extremists, soon it could be people in the occupy movement, which some people consider terrorists, or green peace, or any other group with which the party in power disagrees with.

In keeping with the topic at hand....the regulations placed upon a peace officer serving within the boundries and jurisdiction of the United States is not comparable with the missions and regulation of American military members serving in combat zones. Two different groups and two different missions.

But for the sake of argument you can check into the Immigration & Nationality Act 349(a) and the title 8 USC 1481. These set the difinition and parameters for any U.S. citizen who is serving in any foriegn military group which is hostile to the United States. The american citizen can lose his citizenship and since he is not on american soil will fall under the description of a non-citizen.

A few scenarios might be that our intelligence service has identified a person serving in a military organization hostile towards the U.S. and identified him to be a citizen. They can seek to legally strip him of his citizenship so he will be "persona non grata" and fall under the rules of the theatre of operations or the laws of the country in which he is in.

Much of this along with the Neutrality Act of 1937 was aimed at keeping americans out of foriegn wars and conflicts. These issues brought trouble to the american government in WW1 when american citizens went to France to enlist and fight for France against Germany prior to the US entrance in the war. It culminated in 1976 in Luanda Angola when 13 foriegn mercenaries were tried and executed, several being american citizens and vietnam war veterans.

U.S. Citizens are allowed to enlist into recognized armies and serve if the army is of allie of the U.S. and that citizen holds dual citizenship as in the case of the IDF in Israel.

Please bear in mind the Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. This is a CIVILIAN Cabinet post. Civilian law is very much different from the Uniform Code of Military Justice that the military falls under.

Holder is stating that the government can now legally authorize the killing of Americans without due process as guaranteed by the US Constitution. "We don't need no stinkin' courts"! Does anyone remember the movie "The Eiger Sanction". If they happen to be American, oh well! Both political parties have skirted this issue in the past, now we have an AG that has come out and publicly stated that it can be done "at will" and we don't even have to operate under the pretense that it never happens.

They were members of what "WE" have determined to be a terrorist organization or a group that "WE" think should be placed on a "WATCH LIST" and remember that not long ago, the DHS came out with a list of groups that should be watched as potential threats. The list that also included returning service personnel.

This is a line that should never be crossed! American Citizens or those legally pursuing American Citizenship should always fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Foreigners should not be afforded the same protections.

The person publically declared war on his own country, his people, then left for his new country, I don't see a Unitied State citizen here, remember he called forth followers to attacked US citizens & branded us infidals. I don't much care for the President or Holden, the call was good, why must we wait for more fellow citizens to die before removing the enemy. No more games.

DWC in FL if they are in the enemy camp assisting the enemy then they are the enemy and therfore an open target....

Holder is making a claim for a general principle, which also is intended to justify the Al Alawi killing. I am more interested in and alarmed by the general principle: due process (whatever that means, proceeded by whoever Holder means) taking the place of a judicial due process, which in the history of this country we have been understanding to mean, takes place with all reasonable speed in open court, before a judge and possibly a jury, with defense possible.

So, whatever the case with Al Alawi, it is unconstitutional for the executive branch (no matter who is president) to usurp the power of the judicial branch.

something must be done to amend NDAA. Nag your Senators and Congresspeople to make it right.

DWC, The military does fall under the UCMJ. The UCMJ is not much different than law for civilians. The only thing different is military personel fall under both. Would anyone be crying if you didn't know he was American born? What difference would it had made in your mind if this part was kept hidden? Be honest to yourself! You probably would be overjoyed that the US killed another terrorist leader! If you think Obama is a bad man from day one, then this action will only place fuel on your fire! If you think he couldn't do any wrong, you would defend him against the naysayers. If you are like me and haven't prejudged the man, this action would be justified!

ConradC, In an active firefight if an Americn-born terrorist is killed, then it sucks to be him! If however, you are targeting terrorists and planning and sanctioning their execution, that is a different matter. The Constitution protects American citizens. (PERIOD!) Not if we like them or if we think they are the lowest scum of the earth, they are protected by the safeguards of the US Constitution! Don't play fast and loose with the Constitution, you don't want to see those safeguards eroded. Too many in the current government and at least 1 Supreme Court Associate Justice would like to see the Constitution tossed out and something more expedient replacing it! Read Fahrenheit 451. It has started!

By the way, the UCMJ covers actions that would come under military operations and orders given / followed. Holder has no prinmary jurisdiction over the military. The Military courts would have first jurisdiction.

Question never got answered. Would anyone be crying if they didn't know he was born in the US? Not playing fast and loose with the Constitution, but you sound like someone that is using that document as a scapegoat. The Patriot Act was passed in October 2001. Did you think that way then? Now you sound like an Obama hater in your last post. "Too many in the current government and at least 1 Supreme Court Associate Justice would like to see the Constitution tossed out and something more expedient replacing it! Read Fahrenheit 451. It has started!" Really? What other rights did you lose? Guns? I see them at EVERY rally since 2009. Freedom? Writing on the computer unlike they do in China. YOU Constitutionists are slam bananas. You guys dream of something that has not happened, but the whole world should believe it because your freedom was 'trampled' upon. WHERE? Y'all sound like the preacher predicting the end of the world. When he is wrong, God is his scapegoat. By the way, I am ex military, and I did dabble in things UCMJ. Holder does have primary jurisdiction over any military personel. Just because you are in the military, doesn't exempt you from the law. If so, many soldiers would perform assassinations because they could get away with it! Federal courts supersede military courts. That is why a military member can get tried in civilian court then be tried in military courts.

Gosh, must be hard to support Obama when he behaves like Bush. Credit given for trying. Holder has control of the Military??? Really? The DOJ is in charge of the military? Since when?

Conrad:

The Patriot Act was passed in October 2001. Did you think that way then?

Yes I did. It was and remains an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Would anyone be crying if they didn't know he was born in the US?

Why not just ask if anyone would be "crying" if they didn't know this happened at all? I don't like it when our government decides to assasinate anyone. It's no different than any other brutal regime doing so. But people are, in fact, more concerned when they are aware that they could be next based on some faceless spook's say-so. Your question is not legitimate.