Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[SMOKE 1,426]

it's stating a fact.

sometimes its just better to not state a fact, just know the fact & move along.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Here is the most dangerous claim in this whole debate. Holder and his "constitutional scholar" boss seem to have slept through their history and government classes. One of the foundational principles of American government is the seperation of powers into the branches of government. The executive branch (Obama, Holder, CIA, NSA, the military) have no legal or constitutional claim to undertake "due process."

http://dictionary.la...px?selected=595

Statutory powers belong to the Legislative branch who have passed no law allowing Obama to target U.S. citizens for summary execution. Court practice is the Judicial branch. It should be extremely alarming to every American the the Justice Department has now claimed the authority to execute "due process" unilaterally. If we recognize this, then there are no limit to the circumstances under which the Executice branch....the police, military, Justice Department, etc.... could claim the authority to completely bypass the framework of law, and basic protections like jury trial.

Besides, Holder's claim that the 5th Amendment does not mandate "judicial process" is irrelevant. It is understood through common practice in this country that due process in this country primarily refers to adjudication. Even that doesn't matter, since the issue is spelled out clearly in Article III of the constitution itself:

Holder reads this as optional? What an idiot...

The whole red herring about police being able to use deadly force to stop a crime or force compliance with arrest is ridiculous. They are armed to defend themselves (Obviously). They cannot legally adjudicate and carry out sentence on citizens. They can, however, do what everyone else can do- defend themselves, during the commission of their duties, if someone uses sufficient force against them.

I can't believe there is even a debate on this topic amongst Americans. Incomprehensible. Eric Holder has just told you all that the Executive can kill an American citizen without trial, without a jury, without anything resembling what we have come to agree constitutes due process, and all that is needed is a meeting of individuals whose names we will never know, and who will never answer for their descisions. They will never be accountable for any mistakes they make. If one citizen can be treated in this way, so could any citizen. Unreal.

Someone gets it. Bravo.

[xebec 195]

it's stating a fact. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the governemnt were to start systematicaly executing US Citizens without trial, do you really think that would be OK and they should get by with it?

I wouldn't personally bother with it, but I'm sure many of these militia groups who sit and wait would.

Our social contract is not based on trust or faith in government-quite the opposite actually. It is based on the rule of law, and a binding constitution. Why would we want to surrender any of our rights to government, even for a moment. The writers of the constitution put a great amount of effort into creating a document that removed the "rule of man" and replaced it with the "rule of law." Obama, Holder, and Bush before them seem intent on undoing this work, and re-establishing the "rule of man".....we should just trust them and their minions who make these extra-constitutional descisions about the life and death of American citizens, and damn the constitution. After all, Obama knows what is best for you, and we would not want to limit his ability to make the world a better and safer place.

Edited March 6, 2012 by xebec

[slim 1,525]

I can't believe there is even a debate on this topic amongst Americans. Incomprehensible. Eric Holder has just told you all that the Executive can kill an American citizen without trial, without a jury, without anything resembling what we have come to agree constitutes due process, and all that is needed is a meeting of individuals whose names we will never know, and who will never answer for their descisions. They will never be accountable for any mistakes they make. If one citizen can be treated in this way, so could any citizen. Unreal.

"Did you see The Bachelor last night? OMG!"

"And when Khloe yelled at Lamar I was all like, 'girl you better watch out. You saw what happened to your sister.'"

"Yay! American Idol is on!"

Simply put. America doesn't care. Not yet, anyway.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Here is the most dangerous claim in this whole debate. Holder and his "constitutional scholar" boss seem to have slept through their history and government classes. One of the foundational principles of American government is the seperation of powers into the branches of government. The executive branch (Obama, Holder, CIA, NSA, the military) have no legal or constitutional claim to undertake "due process."

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

Statutory powers belong to the Legislative branch who have passed no law allowing Obama to target U.S. citizens for summary execution. Court practice is the Judicial branch. It should be extremely alarming to every American the the Justice Department has now claimed the authority to execute "due process" unilaterally. If we recognize this, then there are no limit to the circumstances under which the Executice branch....the police, military, Justice Department, etc.... could claim the authority to completely bypass the framework of law, and basic protections like jury trial.

Besides, Holder's claim that the 5th Amendment does not mandate "judicial process" is irrelevant. It is understood through common practice in this country that due process in this country primarily refers to adjudication. Even that doesn't matter, since the issue is spelled out clearly in Article III of the constitution itself:

Holder reads this as optional? What an idiot...

The whole red herring about police being able to use deadly force to stop a crime or force compliance with arrest is ridiculous. They are armed to defend themselves (Obviously). They cannot legally adjudicate and carry out sentence on citizens. They can, however, do what everyone else can do- defend themselves, during the commission of their duties, if someone uses sufficient force against them.

I can't believe there is even a debate on this topic amongst Americans. Incomprehensible. Eric Holder has just told you all that the Executive can kill an American citizen without trial, without a jury, without anything resembling what we have come to agree constitutes due process, and all that is needed is a meeting of individuals whose names we will never know, and who will never answer for their descisions. They will never be accountable for any mistakes they make. If one citizen can be treated in this way, so could any citizen. Unreal.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Our social contract is not based on trust or faith in government-quite the opposite actually. It is based on the rule of law, and a binding constitution. Why would we want to surrender any of our rights to government, even for a moment. The writers of the constitution put a great amount of effort into creating a document that removed the "rule of man" and replaced it with the "rule of law." Obama, Holder, and Bush before them seem intent on undoing this work, and re-establishing the "rule of man".....we should just trust them and their minions who make these extra-constitutional descisions about the life and death of American citizens, and damn the constitution. After all, Obama knows what is best for you, and we would not want to limit his ability to make the world a better and safer place.

Are you suggesting that the State will arrogate powers unto itself if left to its own devices? That's a though crime now come with me, we're expecting you at the Ministry of Love. Big 'Bamer is watching you.

[Leatherneck 693]

Our social contract is not based on trust or faith in government-quite the opposite actually. It is based on the rule of law, and a binding constitution. Why would we want to surrender any of our rights to government, even for a moment. The writers of the constitution put a great amount of effort into creating a document that removed the "rule of man" and replaced it with the "rule of law." Obama, Holder, and Bush before them seem intent on undoing this work, and re-establishing the "rule of man".....we should just trust them and their minions who make these extra-constitutional descisions about the life and death of American citizens, and damn the constitution. After all, Obama knows what is best for you, and we would not want to limit his ability to make the world a better and safer place.

Holder and Obama have never respected the Constitution and Bush certainly did his share of damage.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Holder and Obama have never respected the Constitution and Bush certainly did his share of damage.

Bush gave us Homeland Security.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Holder and Obama have never respected the Constitution and Bush certainly did his share of damage.

Clinton started the FISA courts but there has been a slow and gradual erosion of our rights under every president, new boss is same as the old boss.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Bush gave us Homeland Security.

True. He amped up what previous administrations were doing covertly.

[slim 1,525]

Clinton fans?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Clinton fans?

i don't see any cigars.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Clinton fans?

Too white.

i don't see any cigars.

Besides the guys aren't ogling the chicks they're looking at each other that way, must be Republicans.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Clinton fans?

the hair, clothing do look rather 90s.

[TBoneTX 45,309]

0bama knows what is best for you, and we would not want to limit his ability to make the world a better and safer place.

November 6 can't come soon enough, even if "0bama Lite" (Romney) is the only other choice.

I uneasily have this inkling: There's a 49%-to-51% chance that, if 0bama thinks that he can't win outright or can't steal the election, he'll declare a national emergency and postpone the election "indefinitely." Anyone think the same, even fleetingly?