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…
See post #36
With today’s pills you can extend people’s life with things that would have killed you 30 years ago. Just because he had the problems is not a absolute that he died from his issues. My father survived three major strokes and drove a car after them. It was the forth one that took him. Modern medicine extends life today. I would wait on your judgement.
I think that ‘silly conspiracy theories” are just fine..they are a form of investigation prodding and vetting.
Twenty years ago we never would have thought about political assasinations everytime a politcal figure died suddenly. Times are strange now, and what was unthinkable 20-30 yrs ago....now is not so “weird”.
Thanks. I believe “Gangster Government” is important, and it’s the entire reason for my “Operation #EFAD push over the past week.
Yes. The revolution is on and has been since Bam got in the WH. His Presidency is headed toward totalitarian with an advocate press. People had better wake up. Even on FR.
If ‘they’ did do it, ‘we’ will never know.
If ‘they’ didn’t do it, many will still believe it anyway.
IMHO, God took Andrew because it was his time to go.
Whether they did it or not, the real issue is how they try to take advantage of it.
With all due respect to the death of Andrew Breitbart.
“The brightest stars burn the fastest”.
All that came to mind when I read that he had died while walking was Marilyn Monroe and her very convenient suicide and the many deaths during the Clinton years, Arkacides.
Much as I would love to see such a conspiracy exposed, Andrew's heart was a ticking time bomb.
And it detonated.
The legality or otherwise of assassinating Andrew Breitbart with a puff of "Instant Heart Attack" by a "passer by" would just be irrelevant.
Star Chamber ??
And beyond that, no matter who does the autopsy, there will be a conspiracy cottage industry if a finding of death by natural causes comes back. Cripes, look at the Elenin conspiracy mongering, all for a minor comet that broke up before leaving the inner solar system.
Why didn’t he have personal security?
First question I asked when the news reports said “he was out walking alone and collapsed”, and a neighbor saw it and phoned 911. Where was his security detail? Or didn’t he have one? Inquiring minds want to know.
Or...." no evidence of a hate crime."
Andrew Breibart for Emmanuel Goldstein...
The government running operation, Fast and Furious with no consequences, NDAA signed into law over the holidays, millions just given away to fake green companies, Corzine stealing is acceptable... run more like organized crime, more brazen every day.
“APPARENT natural causes”
That phrase appeared in the very first articles, before it was even widely-confirmed that he’d died, IIRC. Something doesn’t pass the “smell test”, here.
See #26
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.