Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University Law School yesterday explaining President Barack Obama’s claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport.
Holder proclaimed that “The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.” The use of the word “abroad” is interesting since senior Administration officials have asserted that the President may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including the United States. Holder’s speech does not materially limit that claimed authority. He merely assures citizens that Obama will only kill those of us he finds abroad and a significant threat. Notably, Holder added “Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.”
The Obama Administration continues to stonewall efforts to get it to acknowledge the existence of a memo authorizing the killing of Awlaki. Democrats previously demanded the “torture memos” of the Bush Administration that revealed both poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.
Holder became particularly cryptic in his assurance of caution in the use of this power, insisting that they will kill citizens only with “the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.” What on earth does that mean?
He was more clear in establishing that due process itself is now defined differently than it has been defined by courts since the start of this Republic. He declared that “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” Of course, from any objective standpoint, that statement is absurd and Orwellian. It is basically saying that “we will give the process that we consider due to a target.” His main point was that “due process” will now longer mean “judicial process.”
That last statement goes to the heart of the controversy. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Administration that there are real limits to this power because they perform their own constitutional analysis for each killing. This starts with the presumption that the Constitution does not require these determinations to be made by a court or that they be subject to court review. They then redefine the protections of due process as a balancing test within the administration. This Administration has consistently maintained that courts do not have a say in such matters. Instead, they simply define the matter as covered by the Law Of Armed Conflicts (LOAC), even when the conflict is a war on terror. That war, they have stressed, is to be fought all around the world, including the United States. It is a battlefield without borders as strikes in other countries have vividly demonstrated.
The result is that they are claiming that they are following self-imposed “limits” which are meaningless — particularly in a system that is premised on the availability of judicial review. The Administration has never said that the LOAC does not allow the same powers to be used in the United States. It would be an easy thing to state. Holder can affirmatively state that the President’s inherent power to kill citizens exists only outside of the country. He can then explain where those limits are found in the Constitution and why they do not apply equally to a citizen in London or Berlin.
All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decision are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review. They are a dressed claim of process for a unilateral power. Presumably, the President can override the panel or disregard the panel. The panel is an extension of his claim of inherent unilateral authority.
If the “limit” is the internal review described by the administration, we are speaking a different language. Any authoritarian measure can be dressed up as carefully executed according to balancing tests, but that does not constitute “fifth amendment analysis,” “fourth amendment analysis,” or any constitutional analysis that I know of. It is at best a loose analogy to constitutional analysis.
This is precisely why the Framers rejected the “trust me” approach to government, as discussed in this column.
Since last year, U.S. drones have killed three Americans overseas.
Source: LA Times
Hilarious Mespo!
Attorney General Eric Holder Defends Legality of Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens Overseas
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/6/attorney_general_eric_holder_defends_legality
Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN:
In keeping with White House policy, during his remarks Holder refused to even confirm the existence of the CIA-Joint Special Operations Command drone program that carried out the attacks. Holder’s speech was widely seen as the Obama administration’s response to a hail of criticism and legal challenges after more than two years of keeping its assassination program under a cloak of secrecy.
Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit seeking the release of government records on the drone strikes that killed the U.S. citizens in Yemen last year. The suit alleges the government has failed to adequately respond to the Freedom of Information Act requests and has unfairly invoked state secrecy privilege in refusing to disclose the information. The New York Times has filed a similar suit.
For more, we’re joined by Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.
… and the interview continues
I don’t understand why liberal democrats (present company excluded) are for the most part silent at this outrage. What to do in 2012…personally I will hold my nose and vote for Obama if there’s a chance Romney or worse could win.
How sadly ironic that a former constitutional law professor has authorized this. I guess people have become inured to the trampling of our civil rights after 8 years of the former admin.
When did the legislative branch declare war on Al Qaeda? Not being snarky. Could we declare war on a non-state group? If we could, wouldn’t it strengthen the ability to have executions of Al Qaeda operatives’ execution pass muster?
If I flee the country to escape this impending fascist nightmare, I’ll be sure to keep my mouth shut about what’s going on here… May Mr. Holder proudly sport that fasces in the DoJ seal…
the usa is not a democracy. its people are called citizens, but civilians would be more appropriate.
if you vote for politicians, and allow them to rule you, they will, for their own convenience. you can whine about the constitution, but the constitution created the power of politicians to rule you.
it is as simple as this: if you want government for the people, it must be government by the people. this is called ‘democracy,’ you ain’t got it, and until you get it, you are at the mercy of politicians and deserve it.
Jonathan Hughes:
“Evil is bad.”:
*****************
Thank you for that profound theological thought. I bet you’ve got a million of ’em.
By the way, I hear Jesus also said, “Hey, you Philistine! Move your ass. Mine’s coming through,” but it’s only a rumor.
Whoever has what Jesus would not endorse is an idol worshiper just like Philistines who worshiped Dragon a fish god. They were warmongers. See whoever that has a militarily, and see the same. See evil in one of its many destructive oppressing forms. The Philistines were not interested in saving the soul.That’s is why they were warmongers.
seamus,
Thanks for the laugh…
This doctrine expounded by Holder has been iterated quite well since 1865. John Wilkes Booth expounded it as he hit the stage after shooting a man he thought to be treasonous.
… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
lawObama.I like the old version better. I bet SCOTUS will, too– if they get to rule on it.
“them warrant application” I done turned hillbilly fer second.
I hear warrant application, and I see Judas who hung himself after he betrayed Jesus.
anon nurse 1, March 6, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Dredd,
He did, didn’t he…
Perhaps I’ve missed it in the posting and/or subsequent comments, but it has to be said: Our policies and tactics are most certainly radicalizing people, both citizens and non-citizens alike.
=================================
One good thing, we are not the Democrats who Charles Pierce was talking about when he said that, because we have applied the American principles against Bush II and Obama I equally.
Thanks for the link.
I listened to part of his speach to Northwestern Law School. He made a big point of stressing the administration’s stance that “due process” does not mean the same thing as “judicial process”. That’s the money shot. I predict the SCOTUS will be quoting him someday. It makes me laugh about all the hair pulling over warrentless wiretaps under Bush; especially when a system of secret judges existed to review them warrant applications. Now it seems we can grease people with zippo review. Just because he’s not as big a tool as his predecessor doesn’t mean our commander in cheif doesn’t have his own facist kink.
Arthur, how about putting people to death without charge, trial, judge, or jury. How about looking at that fact? Almost makes those bad ol’ days seem like the good ol’ days.
No one should put anyone to death for anything. Humans that die being condemned too death themselves will be highly inclined to kill thinking it is good. God says thou shalt not kill. That law has been displayed all over the place, but humans ignore it. God says that so we will save our soul.
Dredd,
He did, didn’t he…
Perhaps I’ve missed it in the posting and/or subsequent comments, but it has to be said: Our policies and tactics are most certainly radicalizing people, both citizens and non-citizens alike.
There are also some songs that tell the truth about Holder’s tale. That may explain why his nose seems longer in recent photos than it did in the photo JT provided.
Mitt Romney: “Yes, I would sign NDAA.”
Ah… so “two wrongs make…”… everything a-okay…
Evil is bad. NDAA is bad .Nothing good can come from a bad thing. That is why Jesus said overcome evil with good.
anon nurse,
“a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo.”
Nailed it.
I wonder what tune will be sung here after that first citizen-suicide bomber blows up a daycare center.
No one thinks beyond this life. Have humans think beyond this life knowing that the consequences of doing bad acts like a boomerang back at them killing their soul. Have humans know this and no one would do bad to Anyone.
Obama for his souls sake had better repent. If he does not will lose eternal Joy. Giving joy gets joy, but wanting, and n giving death gets death to the body, and soul that wants to give it. Obama is not valuing the intangible things of heaven, hence not having heaven in him.