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…
In the cold light of morning however, I am reminded of some of the more humorous pronouncements by Freepers. If the situation was not so serious to the well being of the United States, one might chuckle. This is to the effect that no matter what, the Presidential mystique would continue to mesmerize voters.
This is to the effect that no matter what, the President survives. If the President WAS born in Kenya, or was caught in totally sexually compromising situations, he would still get the majority vote. For a man to be assassinated, when the President has the high ground, with a press almost totally "in the bag" seems unlikely.
Watching the struggle for the soul of the United States with bated breath here. "Let Right be done!".
Michael Savage has a good answer for this question:
“If the Obama college video comes out, Breitbart died of natural causes; if they don’t come out, he was murdered.”
That it is.
If the man was murdered, what makes you think he’s “resting in peace” if no one’s looking into it? Don’t we owe it to him to at least investigate?
But our adversaries ARE Nationalistic Socialists.
Additionally, it could also be said that people like you are trying to help cover up any foul play, if there is any.
VERY Important Read at Post 15 Bump.
“”Dear fellow FReepers,
Please read (and save) my damning “J’accuse” of the Obama regime, Murdergate, and the liberal media establishment.
Gangster Government, And Sakharov’s Immunity.
I wrote it one day before the “death by natural causes” of Andrew Breitbart, while he was taking a walk alone near his home.””
Thank you Travis.
May God strengthen us in this fight.
Tatt
We have let the commie/elites win. They now own us. Corruption is the name of the game as they know nobody will stop them.
“If the Obama college video comes out, Breitbart died of natural causes; if they don’t come out, he was murdered.”
As Alex Jones pointed out last night, the longer the delay the more likely it was edited after his death...
You don’t know the facts of the matter. You have no way of knowing. Naturally there are suspicious. We are in the middle of a takeover of our country by hardcore, merciless, lawless leftists. They spit on the rule of law and the Constitution.
You have no idea whether Breitbart died a natural death or was killed. Your comment about “lowering and coarsening the discussion” sounds like propaganda to me. Any normal conservative would think at least there’s a possibility of foul play. And that discussing it is not only perfectly sane but natural. You want to shut up the discussion and I don’t get that.
All of that assumes this is video that AB had an exclusive on...we dont know that yet.
It is disrespectful to his family and can only add to their grief.
The thought has crossed my mind that some on the left will stoop to anything, to include assassination.
Will? They have already.
You are absolutely correct. There is a time and place for calling adversaries fascists/Nazis ‘cause sometimes they are.
I know it is hard to wrap one's brain around someone that young dying so suddenly. But, I think he was the epitome of a Type A personality and he just couldn't relax or let go of it. Even for a little while, and it killed him.
There is no conspiracy. I know that when I first heard the news, my first thoughts were to his C-Pac speech proclaiming that he had tape of BO from his college days. And, I thought about perhaps there being foul play. But, I didn't know about his previous heart attack; or, that just prior to his returning home from a trip a person he had drinks with reported that he said he didn't feel good, and she didn't think he looked good. It was a heart attack. I'm very sorry to see him go, too. He was indispensable to our cause; but, it was a heart attack.
just figuring this out?
i have zer0 problems seeing the crew from chicago taking out their political enemies if exceptionally damaging information is about to be released
See Post 80. What WAS his heart condition? Hm? It was serious but doctors couldn't pinpoint the problem?
As I said....BUNK.
If you are correct, then maybe you're next on the list.
BTW, Ashcroft's words mirror those used in the Constitution Article III Section 3 to define treason, which is punishable by death.
Evidently from the assassination of al-Awlaki, the Constitution is now interpreted to mean that conviction of treason merely requires either 1) "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" or 2) "confession in open court". The "open court" part seems to no longer apply to the witness testimony.
You may think that merely writing something that gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which Ashcroft asserts includes anything that would scare people about "lost liberty", would be protected by the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not revise the text of the original Constitution but only supplements it to prohibit Congress from making laws restricting freedom of the press. Whatever constituted an "overt act" in the Article III Section 3 definition of treason remains unchanged by the First Amendment. If one refers to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, it is explicit that any treasonous writing constitutes an "overt act of treason" even if unpublished because "scribere est agere" (to write is to act).
Caveat scriptor: scribere est agere.
Your point well taken here. It is good to have "watch dogs" on behalf of a stable society. Even if some may disagree at times with their findings. We can follow this closely and draw our own conclusions.
To digress..... I always thought the Vince Foster case was very questionable. I always like to put a lesser conclusion for some reason or other, rather than this man was assassinated. What I do guess at though, is that he committed suicide in the White House. Someone did some fast thinking imho.
That is exactly what I thought. How did they know so soon?
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.