U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

[SFC]

Holder Explains Threat That Would Call for Killing Without Trial - NYTimes.com

Eric Holder needs to held accountable for his actions, not attempting to lie to college students that government can kill American citizens if the government thinks they are an al Qaeda terrorist. Can anyone tell me what a terrorist looks like? I have been told that when I was with DOD as my badge was in my shirt pocket in stead of on a chain around my neck. I asked the lady supervisor; Can you tell me what a terrorist looks like? Her answer was, You. I said I should fit right in her as I pulled my badge out to prove to her I was who I said I was. To be honest, I guess with the beard and hair longer than usual I could of passed as a terrorist.

Although I am fuming over Holder's statement about killing Americans. He and his boss were accountable for the death of Brian Terry, Border Patrol Agent in Arizona. His agents from the BATF&E were running Operations Fast and Furious scam with straw purchases from the gun dealers in Arizona. Things really went tits up for Holder when those firearms crossed the Arizona/Mexican border which broke a Federal Law not to mention the killing of innocent Mexican citizens. There are reports that the weapons from Operation Fast & Furious made it down to Columbia Link Removed and for those who want to read about it from a ABC 5 Things You Didn't Know About Operation Fast and Furious - ABC News. There is no way in hell this Lying SOB needs to be free, he needs to be indicted on conspiracy to murder, and impeached for his failing to turn over documented classified information from Senators Issa (R) CA and Grassley (R) IA who are the head of the Committee to investigate the Operation Fast and Furious charges. Now it will be for an indictment or I should say he should be charged with an indictment.

Holder says he is undecided on whether to stay on as attorney general

Link Removed

 

[cougar98332]

eric holder looks like a terrorist, or at the very least a total dumbass

 

[eagleeyes]

holder is a minion of a much larger terrorist organization

 

[S&W645]

holder is a minion of a much larger terrorist organization

Yep, and it starts at the top. The buck stops on the president's desk so he is to blame also.

 

[BC1]

Holder was absent the day they taught constitutional law. Not that terrorists shouldn't be killed, but they want to provide due process (trial in fed court) to foreign terorists.

 

[BC1]

Yep, and it starts at the top. The buck stops on the president's desk so he is to blame also.

The buck stops with the president. Then he spends it on some entitlement program.

 

[Wyldekard]

Holder was absent the day they taught constitutional law. Not that terrorists shouldn't be killed, but they want to provide due process (trial in fed court) to foreign terorists.

Holder was involved in an armed takeover of university property the whole week Constitutional law was taught. That traitor should be hung by the neck like all traitors should be!

 

[patnesbit]

This is so typical of this current administration a low down bunch of hypocrites doing as they please and not minding what rules and laws they ignore, break, or destroy. They would just love to just love to tear up and burn the constitution if they could. They do not care about us at all. If the pres could get away with it and it served his purposes he would have no troubles eliminating all those that apposed him and were gumming up his socialist blueprint for this country. He should have stayed out of the whole holder mess and let him take the heat for the mess that was fast and furious. He should have turned over all documentation instead of using executive privilege to block congress from investigating. Honestly if they are searching for terrorists in this country to execute they need to take a along hard look in a mirror.

 

[Rhino]

U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

U.S. law has always allowed that. If a known perpetrator is identified, can't be captured, and poses a continued threat to society if allowed to escape, that perpetrator can be stopped with deadly force. Cops do it all the time. There's nothing new about that. The only thing new here is discussing the law in the context of terrorism, and the fact that the particular case they're discussing occurred outside the U.S. The reason the media is making a big deal about this isn't because the law allows to use of deadly force. It's because the guy they killed in this case was a U.S. citizen. But when it comes to killing terrorists, I don't care if he's a citizen of Mars. Blow the SOB to bits.

 

[BluesStringer]

U.S. law has always allowed that.

BULL.

If a known perpetrator is identified, can't be captured, and poses a continued threat to society if allowed to escape, that perpetrator can be stopped with deadly force. Cops do it all the time.

How is a "known perpetrator" known under our system of justice absent a trial by jury that convicts him on the basis of evidence tending to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If cops are doing that "all the time," it is they who are breaking the law!

There's nothing new about that.

Then in the context of American citizens overseas who are suspected of being involved in terrorism, you should have no problem coming up with example after example of them being droned without so much as even an indictment back in the states ordering their arrest. Good luck with that. Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were the first ever to fit into that category. At least bin Laden had such an indictment on him. Al-Awlaki and Khan, however, did not. And neither did al-Awlaki's American-born 16-year-old son who was droned two weeks after his father was already dead!

The only thing new here is discussing the law in the context of terrorism, and the fact that the particular case they're discussing occurred outside the U.S. The reason the media is making a big deal about this isn't because the law allows to use of deadly force. It's because the guy they killed in this case was a U.S. citizen. But when it comes to killing terrorists, I don't care if he's a citizen of Mars. Blow the SOB to bits.

OK, so who makes the kill list of "terrorists?" How are the names vetted for legitimacy for being on that list? Who is held accountable when a 16-year-old American citizen dies at the hands of a freakin' video-game player remote-controlling a drone from Langley (or some other far-removed-from-the-action location) and then the administration and CIA lie about the kid being a 26 or 27-year-old known terrorist? Might not one of us just as easily be deemed a terrorist for our anti-government stances, even though in reality, our stances are almost always based on founding principles and adherence to the original intent of our primary set of laws, the Constitution? The pretzel logic of saying that it has always been legal for a president or any other government official to have the autonomous power to form a kill list of American citizens, in the face of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments is stupefying to say the least.

Does it occur to you, Rhino, that the government is (or was at the time of the two Awlaki killings anyway) required to seek judicial authority to electronically surveil American citizens overseas, but Obama (and apparently you) think it's perfectly fine to "Blow the SOB to bits" without so much as a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket being needed to officially justify the action? Where do you find such awesome authority granted to any individual in the Constitution?

For the record, I have no problem with killing terrorists either. But I have a damn big problem with Obama, or Holder, or Clapper, or any individual having the autonomous authority, separate and apart from constitutional processes and restrictions on government, to order the killing of anyone, American citizen or not. Even if Roosevelt had managed to get a shooter close enough to Hitler to take him out, he would've had Congress's declaration of war to back him up, and thus, due process. No one in this country has the constitutional authority to autonomously order the killing of another human being, PERIOD.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

BULL.

HORSE.
.

How is a "known perpetrator" known under our system of justice absent a trial by jury that convicts him on the basis of evidence tending to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If cops are doing that "all the time," it is they who are breaking the law!

And yet, they don't get prosecuted because the shootings are deemed justified. You see them on the 'live camera' shows sometimes, where they broadcast real life events, usually from police dashcams. Typically it's a situation where they're attempting to apprehend someone and he does something that demonstrates that he presents enough of a danger to society that deadly force is justified to prevent him from escaping, so they shoot him. Sometimes that's after the perp has attempted to kill a cop, which represents to them a level of reckless abandon that can't be tolerated to run free among society.
.

Then in the context of American citizens overseas who are suspected of being involved in terrorism, you should have no problem coming up with example after example of them being droned without so much as even an indictment back in the states ordering their arrest. Good luck with that. Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were the first ever to fit into that category. At least bin Laden had such an indictment on him. Al-Awlaki and Khan, however, did not. And neither did al-Awlaki's American-born 16-year-old son who was droned two weeks after his father was already dead!

I never addressed that. From the article, it appears the son wasn't the target. They may not have even known he was there.
.

OK, so who makes the kill list of "terrorists?" Who is held accountable when a 16-year-old American citizen dies at the hands of a freakin' video-game player remote-controlling a drone from Langley (or some other far-removed-from-the-action location).....

I wasn't addressing the list either, nor how it's derived. And phrases like "freakin' video-game player" indicate you're hardly lucid on the topic anyway.
.

Does it occur to you, Rhino, that the government is (or was at the time of the two Awlaki killings anyway) required to seek judicial authority to electronically surveil American citizens overseas, but Obama (and apparently you) think it's perfectly fine to "Blow the SOB to bits" without so much as a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket being needed to officially justify the action? Where do you find such awesome authority granted to any individual in the Constitution?

And apparently you feel it's okay to molest little boys.
.
How does it feel to have words put in you mouth that were never even remotely hinted at? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that any more.
.
I'm far more aware of surveillance authority than you'll probably ever know. I worked with intelligence programs in the military.
.

For the record, I have no problem with killing terrorists either. But I have a damn big problem with Obama, or Holder, or Clapper, or any individual having the autonomous authority.....

Again, I never addressed or even mentioned any of that.

 

[BluesStringer]

And yet, they don't get prosecuted because the shootings are deemed justified.

So you're saying that cops who shoot and kill suspects who are neither armed when they shoot them, or were known or had legitimate reason to suspect they were armed, are always deemed justified? I could post an avalanche of YouTube videos and news reports proving you wrong on that score. They may not all get convicted, and I'll cede that too many don't get prosecuted, but to make it out like it's a rarity that LEO shooters who had no legal justification for discharging their weapons get prosecuted is a provably false assertion.

Typically it's a situation where they're attempting to apprehend someone and he does something that demonstrates that he presents enough of a danger to society that deadly force is justified to prevent him from escaping, so they shoot him.

WAY too vague of a scenario to be meaningful at all. If the "demonstration" is that he was seen by the shooting LEO being a physical threat to someone else, or to the LEO himself, then sure, shooting may well be justified. But if you think the Constitution gives individual LEO's the autonomous authority to decide on-the-spot that the warrant or suspicion he's operating under to arrest someone is all the information needed by the government to execute the subject, you're out of your mind.

Sometimes that's after the perp has attempted to kill a cop, which represents to them a level of reckless abandon that can't be tolerated to run free among society.

If an individual has a murder or attempted murder warrant out on him/her, and the judicial authority signs off on an arrest warrant that escalates to a shooting while trying to arrest the individual, that is one thing. You were talking about something completely different above though, your truly duplicitous attempt to deny it below notwithstanding. You were talking about autonomous decisions to kill people made by cops/CIA agents/presidents/attorneys general etc. The one-line title of the thread is all you replied to, "U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says."

I never addressed that. From the article, it appears the son wasn't the target. They may not have even known he was there.

Clearly the title that you were referring to is talking about kill lists, administrative orders for killing, autonomous powers that Holder contemplates the office of the president inherently having. Why are you trying to deny that anything you previously said wasn't intended to address that?

I wasn't addressing the list either, nor how it's derived. And phrases like "freakin' video-game player" indicate you're hardly lucid on the topic anyway.

Yeah, it's not like I didn't know you would focus on the hyperbole instead of the issue(s) raised and/or addressed by it. You have a well-established pattern of doing everything to avoid taking responsibility for some of the outrageously supportive-of-criminal-government statements you make.

And apparently you feel it's okay to molest little boys.

I rest my case.

How does it feel to have words put in you mouth that were never even remotely hinted at?

It feels exactly as I've already described it - like you're obfuscating to avoid admitting that your earlier post was idiotic and supportive of government killings without any due process. Unless you can say with a straight face that you really thought the title of the thread was referring to cops involved in shootings with dangerous criminals who already had the minimal amount of due process necessary for the initial contact to take place legally. If that's the case, then clearly it is you who isn't "lucid" on the subject being discussed. But you said yourself that that's not what we're talking about anyway:

U.S. law has always allowed that. If a known perpetrator is identified, can't be captured, and poses a continued threat to society if allowed to escape, that perpetrator can be stopped with deadly force. Cops do it all the time. There's nothing new about that. The only thing new here is discussing the law in the context of terrorism, and the fact that the particular case they're discussing occurred outside the U.S. The reason the media is making a big deal about this isn't because the law allows to use of deadly force. It's because the guy they killed in this case was a U.S. citizen. But when it comes to killing terrorists, I don't care if he's a citizen of Mars. Blow the SOB to bits.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that any more.

And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lie anymore about being misquoted. I quoted you directly.
.

I'm far more aware of surveillance authority than you'll probably ever know. I worked with intelligence programs in the military.

And obviously I'm far more aware of the document that allows intelligence agencies to operate legally than you are. It's called The Constitution of the United States of America, and though it is all but dead and buried at this point, it's still supposed to be the supreme law of the land, no matter what Eric Holder or Barack Hussein Obama or you have to say about it.
.

Again, I never addressed or even mentioned any of that.

Wrong. You addressed and specifically mentioned all of it! Quit being obtuse.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

So you're saying that cops who shoot and kill suspects who are neither armed when they shoot them, or were known or had legitimate reason to suspect they were armed, are always deemed justified?

Putting words in my mouth again.
.

I could post an avalanche of YouTube videos and news reports proving you wrong on that score. They may not all get convicted, and I'll cede that too many don't get prosecuted, but to make it out like it's a rarity that LEO shooters who had no legal justification for discharging their weapons get prosecuted is a provably false assertion.

You could post videos on just about anything since you're making up stuff I never said.
.

WAY too vague of a scenario to be meaningful at all. If the "demonstration" is that he was seen by the shooting LEO being a physical threat to someone else, or to the LEO himself, then sure, shooting may well be justified.

That's basically it.
.

But if you think the Constitution gives individual LEO's the autonomous authority to decide on-the-spot that the warrant or suspicion he's operating under to arrest someone is all the information needed by the government to execute the subject, you're out of your mind.

Good thing I never said that then, huh?
.

If an individual has a murder or attempted murder warrant out on him/her, and the judicial authority signs off on an arrest warrant that escalates to a shooting while trying to arrest the individual, that is one thing. You were talking about something completely different above though, your truly duplicitous attempt to deny it below notwithstanding. You were talking about autonomous decisions to kill people made by cops/CIA agents/presidents/attorneys general etc. The one-line title of the thread is all you replied to, "U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says."

I didn't talk about warrants at all. You're the one who keeps bringing that up and pretending that I discussed it. And I'm not attempting to deny anything. It's there for all to see. My post #10 does not contain the word "warrant" anywhere, nor does it refer to them. You're the only one harboring that delusion.
.

Clearly the title that you were referring to is talking about kill lists, administrative orders for killing, autonomous powers that Holder contemplates the office of the president inherently having. Why are you trying to deny that anything you previously said wasn't intended to address that?

Ummmm, lemme think.... Oh, I know! Because it WASN'T!!!! Duh. And what "title" are you referring to? I never mentioned a title.
.

Yeah, it's not like I didn't know you would focus on the hyperbole instead of the issue(s) raised and/or addressed by it. You have a well-established pattern of doing everything to avoid taking responsibility for some of the outrageously supportive-of-criminal-government statements you make.

Except for the well established fact that I never made the statements you keep claiming. Go back and read my post again. Show us anywhere that I addressed warrants, the list or how the list is derived. I never mentioned or even implied any of those. I usually like your posts here, but your continued attempts to chastise me over something I never said is starting to sound pathetic.
.

I rest my case.

I really wish you would.
.

It feels exactly as I've already described it - like you're obfuscating to avoid admitting that your earlier post was idiotic and supportive of government killings without any due process.

I stated facts. That you don't like them hardly constitutes obfuscating on my part.
.

Unless you can say with a straight face that you really thought the title of the thread was referring to cops involved in shootings with dangerous criminals who already had the minimal amount of due process necessary for the initial contact to take place legally. If that's the case, then clearly it is you who isn't "lucid" on the subject being discussed. But you said yourself that that's not what we're talking about anyway:

The title of the thread was about the law. There were no preconditions attached. You never made an attempt to discuss preconditions. You simply attempted to ridicule me for something I never said. Had you tried to discuss such preconditions, it's likely that I may have agreed with you on some of those points. But you chose being a jerk over discussion.
.

And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lie anymore about being misquoted. I quoted you directly.

And yet you continue to lie about what I said. That's misquoting. I'll stop mentioning it when you stop doing it.
.

And obviously I'm far more aware of the document that allows intelligence agencies to operate legally than you are. It's called The Constitution of the United States of America, and though it is all but dead and buried at this point, it's still supposed to be the supreme law of the land, no matter what Eric Holder or Barack Hussein Obama or you have to say about it.

That's right. Because you disagree with me over a fictional comment I never made, that automatically means you know more about the Constitution and what it says about surveillance, which coincidentally is absolutely nothing.
.

Wrong. You addressed and specifically mentioned all of it! Quit being obtuse.

There was nothing in my post about any member of the administration having autonomous athority to order murders. Your lies are getting even bigger.

 

[BluesStringer]

Putting words in my mouth again.

See that little character at the end of the sentence in my quote? It's called a "question mark." I'm asking you if that's what you're saying. Like I said, quit being obtuse.

I didn't talk about warrants at all. You're the one who keeps bringing that up and pretending that I discussed it.

OK, maybe you're actually not being obtuse. The only other explanation though is that you can't read. I only said you'd have a point if you were talking about a death that resulted from the service of a warrant or some other constitutional, legal reason for killing by our government. I said in what you quoted above, "You were talking about something completely different above though." Learn to read or quit being obtuse, whichever the problem is here.

And I'm not attempting to deny anything. It's there for all to see. My post #10 does not contain the word "warrant" anywhere, nor does it refer to them. You're the only one harboring that delusion.

Apparently you can't count either. My post was #10. Yours, that I replied to in #10, was #9.
.

And what "title" are you referring to? I never mentioned a title.

This is what your first reply (#9) was quoted as being in response to:

U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

Those words combine to comprise the TITLE of this thread! Good grief. Would it suit you better if I copied and pasted the whole phrase instead of simply referring to your reply being about the title of the thread? Reading comprehension problems much?
.

Except for the well established fact that I never made the statements you keep claiming. Go back and read my post again. Show us anywhere that I addressed warrants, the list or how the list is derived.

Really, take a deep breath and try to follow this. The OP was all about Holder's assertion that kill lists, autonomously-ordered killings by the President and other unnamed government officials was legal. You quoted the title of the thread and started your reply by saying, "US law has always allowed that." I simply asked you how it could be legal if there's no accountability for how it is derived etc. Well, I asked after I said "BULL" because what the thread is about has never been legal in the U.S. before the killings of al-Awlaki and Khan. You obviously can't follow the thread well enough to discern between a question and a statement though, so you launch into obfuscatory prattle to avoid saying, "Oops, I misread that" or whatever humble admission of getting it wrong might sound like coming from you, which no one around here could possibly know, because you never admit to getting it wrong!

There was nothing in my post about any member of the administration having autonomous athority to order murders. Your lies are getting even bigger.

That's what the thread is about! If you reply to the thread title and/or the OP, saying vapid things like, "U.S. law has always allowed that," those are the subjects you're commenting on!

This is so ridiculous. I sometimes like your posts too, but one more that displays as much lacking in your reading comprehension skills as this one did, and I'm just putting you on ignore. This happens with you too often to make it worth waiting for the times when you're making sense.

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

It is amazing to me that the same administration that argues that foreign-born Gitmo prisoners and the idiots who tried to blow up our jets are entitled legal defense and taxpayer-funded representation, but not American citizens.

 

[Glockout]

I say if you are considered a terrorist, all bets are off. Terrorists flew planes into WTC, they are shooting rockets into Israel, and they are responsible for so much else. If you want to act tough, you should be treated that way, American citizen or not. I have full faith in the intelligence community to provide enough evidence to prove someone is a terrorist or not. After that, I say kill them. No trial, no jury.

 

[The_Outlaw]

I say if you are considered a terrorist, all bets are off. Terrorists flew planes into WTC, they are shooting rockets into Israel, and they are responsible for so much else. If you want to act tough, you should be treated that way, American citizen or not. I have full faith in the intelligence community to provide enough evidence to prove someone is a terrorist or not. After that, I say kill them. No trial, no jury.

The problem with your logic is the scary fact that the current fascist ObamaLamaDingDong administration considers 'you', 'me' & the majority of us 'gun owning forum members' to be "possible terrorists". If you are a white male (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a veteran (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a Christian (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a Republican (you might be a terrorist)...If you are pro-life (you might be a terrorist)...If you believe in defending the 2nd-Amendment (you probably are a terrorist) in their eyes...etc...

 

[S&W645]

The problem with your logic is the scary fact that the current fascist ObamaLamaDingDong administration considers 'you', 'me' & the majority of us 'gun owning forum members' to be "possible terrorists". If you are a white male (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a veteran (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a Christian (you might be a terrorist)...If you are a Republican (you might be a terrorist)...If you are pro-life (you might be a terrorist)...If you believe in defending the 2nd-Amendment (you probably are a terrorist) in their eyes...etc...

And remember, Pelosi even came right out and said it.

 

[Glockout]

Sounds a little too conspiracy theory to me. I think people are just paranoid. No way they will start holding people who are religious based on that alone. Same with trying to defend the Second. They have to have good reason.

 

[vernsimpson]

Sounds a little too conspiracy theory to me. I think people are just paranoid. No way they will start holding people who are religious based on that alone. Same with trying to defend the Second. They have to have good reason.

Where have you been for the last 4 years? The oblame-someone-else and his minions have been shredding the US Constitution little by little every day. Pelosi and Big Sis have both said we are the problem. Do NOT doubt for a second that Big Sis is not monitoring this forum. This administration most likely knows more about all who are on here than they EVER wanted to know about Benghazi.