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…
Actually i don’t care what the mainstream media thinks, or other lefty sites. I’m not a conservative who tries to make leftists like me. Hell, that has been the problem, we try and act nice and they knife us in the back anyway.
But interesting topic here, trying to get at the truth. Questioning constitutional issues. Possibly doing some good.
Now that is worthwhile.
Breitbart never worried about being liked, or what was said about him - they attacked him for the Anthony Wiener Story. They said he was a nut for going after ACORN. The called him a nazi, a racist, etc. Did A.B. care? Not one bit!
I think we are in good company - fighting the good fight!
Thanks for the Breitbart Ping!
Guess again. Absolutely no way that happened!!!
Always good to be set right on various matters. I would certainly accept the information you have kindly given. The only other thing that I can think of is the carrying out of files by an aide to the First Lady. This from Vince Foster's office (I believe). A security man contradicted her emphatic denial about this.
I've been thinking about the possibility you have put forth.
The stun gun might be a problem though. I think that would show up on a ‘legit’ autopsy.
The moment I heard “natural causes”, I got suspicious.
My Mother says you can have fleas and ticks.
It could have been natural; it could have been natural with something else natural going on; it could have been something beside the heart and still be natural; it could be foul play.
It could have been many things; but can a legal autopsy be performed within 6 hours of death and, for sure, be called this, that, or the other happened. Toxicology can take weeks/months to determine cause of death.
What a loss for his family, friends, the conservative movement, patriots and our country.
RIP
Wasn’t there a act (the name began with an “H” - I can NEVER remember his name) that made assassinations of foreign leaders illegal?
Did this act include assassination of US citizens as well?
I don’t know what in your post made me think this: if Andrew B. was assassinated, not only for the tapes he mentioned, could he have been assassinated to be a warning to the - others.
The Chicago Style - the Mob Style. Assassinate one as a threat to - others.
he day he died was the Anniversary of the Weathermen’s bombing of the Capital.
Odd to me.
Was this date Ayer’s calling card?
March 1, 1971
A bomb explodes in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing an estimated $300,000 in damage but hurting no one. A group calling itself the “Weather Underground” claimed credit for the bombing, which was done in protest of the ongoing U.S.-supported Laos invasion.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bomb-explodes-in-capitol-building
Who saw Andrew fall?
Was there someone who walked by him moments before he fell?
Could someone knowing he had a bad heart, zapped him to give him a heart attack?
Will we ever know?
Two posters have said that a jogger ran by him before he collapsed. The witness saw that. However I have not read that myself.
I’ve heard Bill Whittle’s spiel already. I’m asking how that squares with Breitbart’s father-in-law saying he knew of no cardiac problems and the coroner’s office saying he hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year. And nobody’s responding.
I listened to your source. Now you listen to the top video at http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/ . I don’t know much about Alex Jones but he claims that he has spoken to people who were very close to Breitbart and they are convinced that he was killed. He doesn’t mention names but if there is fear of being killed the LAST thing you’d expect is people who knew Breitbart was killed being willing to come out and say so. And as I’ll explain here, there is DEFINITELY fear of being killed.
He also said that Michael Savage has a bodyguard and airs from different places because he’s fearful of his life.
In speaking with Corsi in this interview, Corsi mentions that he is aware of the threats made to the media if they reported on Obama’s eligibility and that the posse knows about that as well. I gave those guys the information about Hagman’s claims and as a result of the posse’s investigation we now know Hagman’s claims are true.
See, you want to call me a crazy conspiracist but what you don’t know is that I have been working with law enforcement and they have access to the witnesses. We know that the media has been threatened if they reported on the eligibility issue. And we know that the media people are scared spitless.
Andrew B. had a LOT of enemies, didn’t he? Why wouldn’t he have a security detail.
People like Beck, Rush, Hannity, et al, avail themselves of security details.
Don’t ex-presidents and former first ladies still get government provided security?
Was it his normal routine to walk alone at night? Was that AB’s way to clear his mind or think over his ideas. Was it a way to just relax before going home?
Was it his routine? And, if he didn’t have a security detail, why not?
Do you find the date odd?
I think we’re doing exactly what Breitart would have wanted.
There’s one thing that gives me pause though, and that is that if this was an assassination, his family has got to be terrified. I would think they are safe because if any of them gets bumped off any time soon it will only confirm the suspicions. But they may want things quiet just because they know what visibility can do to a person who crosses the Soros thugocracy. We know that Breitbart’s father-in-law changed his story about not knowing anything about a heart condition. My guess is that he first gave his honest answer and then when it became clear that people weren’t buying the “natural death” explanation he got scared for his daughter and grandkids and wanted things to just be quiet so they can grieve.
I can understand that and want to honor that. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to forget that the discrepancies have never been explained. We’ll never know for sure what happened, but it’s suspicious, especially knowing what I do about the threats to the media companies over the eligibility issue - and that Breitbart hadn’t been in the group that was initially threatened, that he had suddenly shown an interest in talking to Arpaio, and that the Soros gang didn’t have time to do the threat thing with Breitbart before he could have spilled the beans on the eligibility story.
If the Soros gang thinks the story of threats (and/or violence to the media if they reported about who he is) is going to fade quietly into the night they have another think coming. This is just the beginning of the public revealing of who these people really are and what they’ve been doing to this once-free nation.
It would be interesting to have somebody analyze the non-verbals in that video.
Why did he say he had tapes of Obama at CPAC? Why didn’t he just release the tapes when he thought the time was right?
It would seem AB was, for some reason, putting himself in jeopardy by talking about these Obama tapes.
Maybe that is why the *tin foil* (including mine) is pinging “11”.
It makes no sense to talk about what you have on someone and think they would not take action to keep it from being released.
Certainly. Especially considering that he had a tape purportedly of Ayers and Obama from Bams college days and recently had dinner with Ayers.
Agree. Sadly, I agree, wolf24.
Timing this right after Breitbart had spoken with Arpaio and right before Arpaio gave the press conference serves a very EFFECTIVE warning shot across the bow to any media people who might have been thinking about actually reporting the evidence from the presser.
A Freeper who was at that presser said the air went out of the room as everybody in the room grasped the reality that Obama is a fraud. With that as a backdrop, the reporters’ lapdog attacks on Arpaio rather than addressing the substance of the evidence is a dead giveaway that they had their orders and knew they better obey.
Nobody in the media would report the specific evidence presented at the presser, nor would they post video of it so people could see for themselves. As far as I know, the only place to see the video is at http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/see-evidence-of-fraud-in-obama-birth-certificate/ .
I read it, and thank you.
God Bless Andrew’s brave fearless soul.
We continue to fight.
Even the JFK assassination cannot be fully explained - even to this day, all these years later.
How long before Andrew B.’s case be fully settled?
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.