Posted on 03/04/2012 8:28:17 AM PST by null and void
If Breitbart was assassinated, it could be perfectly legal under current US laws and policy.
CIA Lawyers Maintains Citizens Could be Targets if they are at War With the U.S.What is a weapon?
December 1, 2011
The Associated Press has reported that top national security lawyers in the Obama administration have determined that U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaeda.
Answering questions at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric who Obama descirbed as "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”.
Al-Alwaki had been killed in a September 30 U.S. drone strike led by the CIA in the mountains of Yemen. The radical, whos fiery sermons made him a larger-than-life figure in the world of Jihad, had long eluded capture by CIA and Yemeni security operatives.
However, in 2011, after days of surveillance, the New York Times reported, armed drones operated by the CIA took off from a new secret American base in the Arabian Peninsula, crossed into the northern Yemen border and rained a barrage of Hellfire missiles at a car carrying al-Alwaki and other top operatives from Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.
According to the AP, the government lawyers - CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson - did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy, the AP reported.
Is someone who threatened to end the Obama presidency "at war" with the U.S. in the eyes of the president?
IF the president determined that Andrew Breitbart's release of video of his college days would threaten his presidency, and
IF the president believes his presidency is essential to the continuation of the US government,
THEN the president would be OBLIGATED to remove the threat.
As such he would be required, in his own mind, to issue a presidential finding that Andrew Beritbart needs to be eliminated before the videos are released.
The CIA, would legally be bound to follow the presidential directive and eliminate the threat in a timely fashion.
After all, destabilizing the US government is an act of war, and in perfect alignment with al Qaeda's goals, isn't it? Isn't it?
Although some of us old fashioned folks, bitterly clinging to the Constitution, might argue that it is a freedom of speech issue…
What proof? On every thread I’ve seen on this subject I’ve asked anybody to provide any report pre-dating March 1, 2012 where it was said that Breitbart had a heart problem, and so far nobody has come up with anything. What they’ve come up with is people since Breitbart died claiming that he had a heart problem, had a heart attack a year ago, was hospitalized for a heart attack, had a heart attack a month ago, etc. But either those reports are wrong, or else something was screwy when Reuters reported that Breitbart’s father-in-law said he DIDN’T know of any heart condition and the coroner’s office said he hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year.
If it was an assassination I can fully understand why the family wants to say it was natural causes and might even ask friends to make up stories to try to create a pre-existing heart condition. There’s a wife and 4 little kids to protect, and if they did this to Andrew who might they do it to next, if the family did anything to let the public know it was an assassination?
Ultimately we’re never gonna know and we may as well drop the issue, for the sake of the family.
But I do think we need to ask what Null and Void is asking - given what the CIA lawyers are claiming about targeted assassinations and the recent law passed by a majority of the Congress-critters allowing the government to detain “terrorists” based on them being simply “belligerent” (without any definition for what constitutes belligerence), what would protect any one of us - Breitbart included - from being called a terrorist by Obama, based on what he calls “belligerence”, and assassinated by a heart-attack-inducing frozen dart that can’t be detected by an autopsy?
That’s the question of this thread, and nobody seems ot be really addressing it.
If targeted assassinations of US citizens (deemed by the POTUS to be “terrorists”) are legal, and if it is legal for the executive branch to make up their own definition of “belligerence” and call somebody a terrorist based on that, then any one of us can be called a terrorist by this illegal POTUS in office right now and be legally assassinated without anybody ever knowing or having recourse.
“In an era of universal deceit, the truth is a revolutionary act” (George Orwell)
To cower in silence is no longer an option.
His life wasn’t in danger, really?
Wow, you are one informed poster -
seriously, you should take a little time and
do some background work and come back and let
us know that he was not in any danger -
Scaring people would only be “treason” using your argument if the liberties claimed to be lost really are a “phantom”.
In this case we’ve got an American citizen killed by the US government without due process - based simply on the POTUS’ opinion that the person killed was a terrorist. You tell me what that is if not a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process for US citizens.
And we’ve got a law passed by Congress and signed by the usurper in the White House which allows the same treatment for those who are “belligerent” (an undefined term so it can be defined however the POTUS wants to define it) as for those giving actual material aid to terrorists. That treatment includes indefinite detainment without the due process of knowing the accusation against you, having a lawyer, going to trial, etc. The POTUS can make up an arbitrary definition for “belligerence”, on the basis of that definition label any one of us “belligerent” and thus a terrorist, and give the kill order. Furthermore, he can have the assassination be done by the military using whatever method he wants - including undetectable assassination methods so nobody even knows that he gave an assassination order.
These are NOT “phantoms of lost liberty”. These are right now, right here violations of our Constitution and laws.
Agree absolutely.
So why did his father-in-law say he knew of no heart problems, and why did the coroner’s office say he hadn’t seen a doctor for over a year? You don’t have a week-long stay in the hospital following a heart attack a year ago without your father-in-law knowing and without seeing a doctor for over a year.
It’s the discrepancies that raise the questions.
And the timing. As was mentioned here, if there were medical issues Breitbart’s enemies would have known that. Heck, the government knows what’s in MY e-mails; they sure as heck know what’s in Breitbart’s. If he had a heart condition his enemies would have simply known to use that particular form of assassination rather than something that would cause a different medical crisis.
Ultimately we’re never gonna know for sure. But we may as well acknowledge that there are discrepancies in the claims and it looks fishy.
And we have a duty to address null and void’s basic question: Is it currently legal for the POTUS to assassinate somebody he views as “belligerent”, which could be defined by him as simply being a danger to his administration?
Does the law in any way prohibit the POTUS from defining “belligerent” or “terrorist” as “somebody who threatens my administration”? If so, show me where the law prohibits the POTUS from using that definition?
So you're saying that the L.A. County government murdered Breitbart?
Not even close, try again.
Still around and trying to lay low.
Tell you what, when the autopsy report shows that he died of a heart attack and nothing else, come back and give us an apology, ok?
That's not likely to happen tho because TF'ers (Tin Foil hat wearers) like you will never admit you're wrong, everything is a cover-up regardless of all the overwhelming evidence. Don't worry, despite what you may believe,the world is not out to get you.........LOL!
That's why I wrote Gangster Government and Sakharov's Immunity. http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm I am taking my stand here.
Very mature response, with a cartoon to make a point.
Never wore tin foil in my life, aren’t now and have no plans to in the future. Reality is ugly enough without adding nonsense to it.
Since you knew Andrew so well, knew his life and his story, his family, friends and associates, I’m guessing you will continue to inform us on his passing. Keep up the good work!
Well-stated.
And BTW, this is also why they would choose a loner, expected schizophrenic, or druggie to do mind-control type experiments on for military weapons/technology development including assassination capabilities, which - if I understand correctly - is one of the things done at the military base that Jared Laughner applied to and was rejected from because he failed the drug test... Laughner failed in his alleged attempt to assassinate Gabby Giffords but managed to kill Judge John Roll within 8 seconds with a hit to his aorta. There were a lot of claims made by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others including Homeland Security that contradicted the facts that came out later...
It’s all stuff that makes a person go Hmmm... And it’s all stuff we’ll never be able to prove one way or the other. It’s designed to be that way. Covert assassinations are designed to have a plausible natural explanation, and only “conspiracy theorists” would ever suggest it was an assassination, which could never be proven.
The founders knew that the only way to get honest, decent work out of government is by limiting it and making it accountable.
Regarding government limitations - the Obama regime has totally dismantled all the limits on the executive office, Constitution, rules, laws - anything that would stop them from doing whatever they darn well please.
Regarding accountability - regulatory power is in the hands of unaccountable czars. Law enforcement is in the hands of Eric Holder. Media is in the hands of George Soros. Elections are in the hands of ACORN, etc. and the Obama-supporting company that programs the elections tabulation for about half of the states right now. The DOJ is working to pass a rule making it legal for them to claim records don’t exist when they actually do - but it wouldn’t matter what the law says because the government breaks the laws quite regularly - including subpoenas, etc - with impunity.
As Travis McGee has said, covertly assassinating Breitbart would be piddles to the Obama regime, since they’ve already killed hundreds of people by forcing US gun traders to sell untrackable guns to the drug cartels that have been terrorizing our southern border. They’re not too worried about it though because the Congressional investigation can be put to a stop simply by ignoring subpoenas - since the original tactic of simply committing perjury on the stand wasn’t working out so well...
The war on terrorism has turned things around, because in order to confront the terrorists our government has to be able to do things covertly - which is fine if you have an honest government. The problem is that human nature says that if there’s no way for the public to hold someone accountable for covert actions, those people will NEVER end up being honest. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think one of the things we need to learn is that the way for government to fight terrorism is by closing our borders to illegals and getting rid of the corruption within government that terrorists can exploit to get access they shouldn’t have. If the government was doing those things, the vigilance of the people would go a long way toward detecting terrorists among us.
I agree. Targeted assassinations of US citizens are a violation of the 14th Amendment, as is a law allowing indefinite detainment of US citizens without any kind of due process.
And whether it is illegal or not, it is absolutely crazy to define as a terrorist somebody who is “belligerent”, without defining “belligerence” in any way. It’s also crazy to allow that determination to be made by any one person, with no means for scrutiny.
So what’s the solution?
Anyone see the Castle TV show where a guy could cause wars by just one assassination? One low level person could start a chain reaction that could effect the fate of a nation of the world. Breitbard was one of the little links that held the Conservative movement together—Getting rid of him might be the one thing that would secure Obama’s election for 4 more glorious years as he transforms America into the Worker’s Paradise. We have motive—but do we have means?
Watch your back - no walks alone in the neighborhood.
“We have motive—but do we have means?”
The witness
The jogger
Breitbart was not Assassinated!
He worked himself to death!
Stop making FR members look like fools!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.