Groups Reject Holder’s Defence of Targeted Assassinations

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON, Mar 7 2012 (IPS) - One day after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder outlined the statutory justifications for “targeted killings”, civil liberties groups here continue to question the legality of the Obama administration’s policy, particularly as it applies to the rights and very lives of both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

Speaking before law school students on Monday, Holder rebuffed claims that the president is required, under the U.S. Constitution, to obtain permission through a process of judicial review to assassinate U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with al-Qaeda.

Holder argued that the distinction between due process – the right guaranteed to U.S. citizens that the government cannot deprive life without due process of law – and judicial process – the system of military courts used to try suspected terrorists during a time of war – was an important one.

“The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process… These circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the U.S. to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad – but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation,” Holder noted.

Read more: http://ipsnews.net/2012/03/groups-reject-holders-defence-of-targeted-assassinations/

[gratuitous]

1. The word "defence" is a dead giveaway

Buncha goddam hippies. They don't know how to protect America! Sometimes you just have to take a little short-cut through the Constitution to save the United States.

[Vincardog]

2. . Attorney General Eric Holder DID NOT outlined the statutory justifications for murdering

citizens of the USA solely on executive order without review. He spat some sound bytes and threw sand in the air trying to cloud the issue. The constitution of the US is clear. "the government cannot deprive U.S. citizens of life without due process of law" is absolutely clear.
It does not say unless the President says their name is on a list and he want's to kill them".

The 5'th says

"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.[1]

If a Grand Jury is required "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, when in actual service in time of War"
Unless you are in the military and there is a War declared. It seems like the whole Military Tribunal canard is a load of BS.
It also seems that the claimed powers are unconstitutional.

We are either a nation of laws for ALL or we are not a nation of laws.

[leftyohiolib]

3. eric holder meet john yoo

[Vincardog]

4. The shit does not fall far from the bat. Why does BO support this nonsense?

[leftyohiolib]

6. election year catering perhaps,,, to the "war now" crowd

[msanthrope]

5. So, then, Alexander v. Lousiana was wrongly decided?????

I'm at a loss on your Grand Jury point....

[Vincardog]

7. What has the decision on racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury have to with it?

Eric Holder maintains that no judicial process is required. The fifth amendment says he is wrong.
You keep wanting to side track the conversation from that point for some reason.

[Angry Dragon]

8. If due process is not judicial then is it

just a bunch of people getting together deciding someone is a threat??

Down the slippery slope into the depths of decay

[Dragonfli]

9. Worse than a slope, we have fallen over the cliff. These are King Powers not Presidential ones

One man can decide that anyone anywhere in the world can be killed and have the hit performed without having to show any proof of any kind to any one.

We would have to discard the whole notion we have of Democracy along with the constitution in order to make the above part of our law.

If that has already been done then they really should change the name of the position "President" as the new king like powers indicate a much larger role than was intended by our founders for the position "President of the United States". I am old fashioned so I would just officially make the position title "King", others may choose something more democratic sounding like "chancellor".

[Solly Mack]

10. K&R