Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

What's going on in the world today?

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:02 pm

The U.S. government is legally justified in killing its own citizens overseas if they are involved in plotting terror attacks against America, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, offering the Obama administration's most detailed explanation so far of its controversial targeted killing program.

"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not," he said in remarks prepared for a speech at Northwestern University's law school in Chicago.

An American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen in late September. Some civil liberties groups condemned the attack. Others, including members of Congress, called for a more complete explanation of how such a targeted killing of an American civilian was consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
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.

Wow. I guess that works out the same way the first amendment guarantees freedom of "worship" and not freedom of religion. What other fundamental rights can we redefine next?

Holder said a U.S. citizen can legally be targeted in a foreign country if that person is "a senior leader of al-Qaida or associated forces," and is actively involved in planning to kill Americans. Killing would be justified if the person poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the U.S. and cannot easily be captured.

Any military operation targeting a citizen overseas must be carried out consistent with the law of war. "The principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering," he said.

The ACLU called Holder's explanation "a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny."

"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.

"Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power,” she said.

FYI: Any person who trust President Obama with this power is a God damned jack ass retarded mouth breather.
...


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ror-groups


Can we not make this 16 years of Bush please?
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby boethius » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:08 pm

@Doc-- You must be a terrorist to talk like that.
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7980
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:14 pm

boethius wrote:@Doc-- You must be a terrorist to talk like that.



You better watch out for me too. It's only a matter of time before I hand over ten thousand assault rifles to drug cartels, and force nuns to abort babies.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby nmoore63 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:20 pm

Decentralization.

They are leaving us few options but the complete dissolution of the Federal Government.
Nick Moore - The Ponderous Right Winger

... And furthermore, the NSA must be destroyed.
User avatar
nmoore63
Archon
 
Posts: 11814
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Ephrata, WA

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:22 pm

nmoore63 wrote:Decentralization.

They are leaving us few options but the complete dissolution of the Federal Government.



Unfortunately, I think this is correct. Obama has proven that in no way should we maintain a federal government with this power. Obama is a disaster. This guy is twice as tyrannical and destructive than any other president in history. Hell, most of our best presidents would despise him.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby DBTrek » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:34 pm

Wake me up when the Federal government is dissolved by the sheer weight of complainers on the internet.
I'll have a hat to eat, on that day.
:altwink:
User avatar
DBTrek
Archon
 
Posts: 28001
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:55 pm

DBTrek wrote:Wake me up when the Federal government is dissolved by the sheer weight of complainers on the internet.
I'll have a hat to eat, on that day.
:altwink:



More like the "complainers" in two-thirds of the state legislatures. It does seem more likely that day is coming after the past year or so. This situation is impossible. A president with these powers is going to turn the nation against the federal government sooner or later. It's only a matter of time before he kills somebody that sets people off against him. As it is, his first amendment abridgments already pose the threat of civil disobedience on a national level if the judiciary does not rebuke him again. Looking at the men who would replace him, I don't see how it gets better either.

It's only a matter of time. These people are playing with fire. Americans didn't do much about the last tyrannical government until they did. People spoke and wrote similar sentiments as you then too.

No matter how this goes down, I think it is clear we need a convention. We need to alter or replace the federal government. Once that process begins, decentralization might be the only politically tenable course of action.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby DBTrek » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:02 pm

Are we betting DC bucks on the date of this impending Doomsday . . .because my money is on "Every election cycle the Doomsayers come out of the woodwork, only to vanish after the election".

Remember how the world was ending and democracy was dead when GWB 'stole' Florida? Remember how the republic was over when his police state policies, PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and normalization of torture were implemented?

Yet here we are.

We may be marginally closer to a bloody crackdown.
OWS has demonstrated that the discontentment is growing.
But my money is on the Federal Government maintaining power over all fifty states for the foreseeable future. I'll even call it all the way out to 2030 if you like, that's eighteen friggin' years.

Who wants to put their DC bucks on me being wrong?
User avatar
DBTrek
Archon
 
Posts: 28001
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:19 pm

DBTrek wrote:Are we betting DC bucks on the date of this impending Doomsday . . .because my money is on "Every election cycle the Doomsayers come out of the woodwork, only to vanish after the election".

Remember how the world was ending and democracy was dead when GWB 'stole' Florida? Remember how the republic was over when his police state policies, PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and normalization of torture were implemented?

Yet here we are.

We may be marginally closer to a bloody crackdown.
OWS has demonstrated that the discontentment is growing.
But my money is on the Federal Government maintaining power over all fifty states for the foreseeable future. I'll even call it all the way out to 2030 if you like, that's eighteen friggin' years.

Who wants to put their DC bucks on me being wrong?



I don't think you can predict something like this. All I am saying is that the likelihood that this goes down is increasing faster in the past year than I have ever seen it happen in my life. As far as I am concerned, the last time we were this close to such a condition was the Great Depression. Really, all it will take is another economic collapse like that one, and we are pretty much heading for that right now.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 37379
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby raistian77 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:31 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:
nmoore63 wrote:Decentralization.

They are leaving us few options but the complete dissolution of the Federal Government.



Unfortunately, I think this is correct. Obama has proven that in no way should we maintain a federal government with this power. Obama is a disaster. This guy is twice as tyrannical and destructive than any other president in history. Hell, most of our best presidents would despise him.



It was a slick move on his part. Take legislation that borderlines illegal and push it even further. Sad part is the Republicans are doing the dirty works for them. With their "weak on terror" take on Obama he comes out looking like a lamb when he is in fact the wolf.

The Republicans are going to get this guy elected for 4 more years.
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby nmoore63 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:26 pm

DBTrek wrote:Are we betting DC bucks on the date of this impending Doomsday . . .because my money is on "Every election cycle the Doomsayers come out of the woodwork, only to vanish after the election".

Remember how the world was ending and democracy was dead when GWB 'stole' Florida? Remember how the republic was over when his police state policies, PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and normalization of torture were implemented?

Yet here we are.

We may be marginally closer to a bloody crackdown.
OWS has demonstrated that the discontentment is growing.
But my money is on the Federal Government maintaining power over all fifty states for the foreseeable future. I'll even call it all the way out to 2030 if you like, that's eighteen friggin' years.

Who wants to put their DC bucks on me being wrong?

People who complain on the internet are worthless... now let me complain on the Internet....

Rocks from Glass Houses my friend.

Rocks from Glass Houses.
Nick Moore - The Ponderous Right Winger

... And furthermore, the NSA must be destroyed.
User avatar
nmoore63
Archon
 
Posts: 11814
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Ephrata, WA

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby DBTrek » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:33 pm

nmoore63 wrote:People who complain on the internet are worthless... now let me complain on the Internet....

Rocks from Glass Houses my friend.

Rocks from Glass Houses.


Go decentralize the government because they've left you no other choice, Luke Skywalker.

Overblown hyperbole my friend.

Overblown hyperbole.

:altwink:
User avatar
DBTrek
Archon
 
Posts: 28001
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby de officiis » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:58 pm

Here is the WSJ's extracted portions of Holder's speech:


In response to the attacks perpetrated — and the continuing threat posed — by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law. The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.

Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan. Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan. We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country. Over the last three years alone, al Qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks — fortunately, unsuccessful — against us from countries other than Afghanistan. Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.



[I]t is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.



Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.

Whether the capture of a U.S. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question. It may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to U.S. personnel. Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.

Of course, any such use of lethal force by the United States will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force. The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether.

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “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.


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/03/05/key-experts-from-holders-speech-on-targeted-killing/?mod=WSJBlog
Image
User avatar
de officiis
Satrap
 
Posts: 4460
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Waleis » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:35 pm

To remove (or reduce the power of) the Federal Government, is to remove the middle man. Remarkably little would be accomplished with its removal.

Sure the populace has its moment of democratic triumph, it's sense of certainty that a fundamental problem has been solved, that the People reign once again. But big government isn't the root of the problem; big government in America is a symptom and a function of corporatism. Big business already calls the shots. Remove the Federal Government or, more realistically, substantially cull its power and all you've done is extend the power of multinational corporations to each locality directly. The reach of corporate influence already extends to almost every locality within America, but only in moral, ethical, and emotional ways. Corporate influence would become significantly more tangible. Any power vacuum arising from the reduction in power of our Federal Government would be immediately filled by corporate power.

Decentralization in this context, when the People are enervated and largely catatonic, would be most detrimental.
"No man grows rich by kindness."-Jorah Mormont

"True heroism is you, alone, in a designated workspace. True heroism is minutes, hours, days, year upon year of the quiet, precise, judicious exercise of probity and care, with no one there to see or cheer." The Pale King, by D. F. Wallace.
User avatar
Waleis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 9789
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:32 am
Location: Dragonstone, Iowa

Re: Holder: Due Process does not come from courts

Postby Fife » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:36 pm

de officiis wrote:Here is the WSJ's extracted portions of Holder's speech:


“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.



Holy shit, can you find a more brazen statement than that?
Thank you for visiting Fife. We welcome your comments and suggestions regarding our free public service. Have a nice day and please come again.
User avatar
Fife
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:29 am
Location: Mrs. Mendlebright's house--upstairs

Next

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests