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…
Not then, not now, not ever.
Leftist hit-piece. They’ve even got Col North saluting w/ his *left arm*. The comments below it are semi-priceless.
Hell, I’ll play along with some ‘what-ifs.’
If I were the team targeting some “person of interest,’ first I would look for their weaknesses, drug use, medical issues, psychological issues. Then study their habits - like when they are alone, where they go, anything that could be exploited.
Once the weakness is found then the most obvious thing is to exploit it - as that is the best way to make it seem like there was no foul play involved.
Just saying - people who do wetwork for a living are not stupid, they are playing chess, while most of the sheeple out there can only see the world as a game of checkers.
No wonder they’re winning.
Finally, as a change of pace - if a guy’s profile said he was known to be depressed you would try and find him when he was alone, hit him with over-amped stun gun, and then get him in a noose. Since people would say he was depressed, no one would question the suicide. That one is fairly easy.
Again, I spent only a few minutes thinking about it (it ain’t my job). The real bad guys are way more sophisticated. Being completely naive is no way to get our freedoms back.
Yes. I don't recall if it was by presidential order or act of congress.
NDAA would seem to have reversed any act of congress, and well, we do have Obama acting as president these days...
Here is my two cents. Someone needs to do antibody tests on AB. He probably died of the same ailment that RUSH didn’t die of in Hawaii sometime back. Biowarfare—otherwise known as Bird Flu. I pray I am wrong. Obomber will win in November, otherwise he wouldn’t be doing now what no one in their right mind would be doing.
Obomber is doing what he always does. Clearing the playing field. But my guess he is also clearing the playing field by eliminating the voters!!! Chew on that.
Well aren’t you a blast from the past. I didn’t know you were still around.
The autopsy done by the government? That one? I’m guessing that Mr. Breitbart died in Los Angeles. Who controls that city? Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa? Before being elected to public office, Villaraigosa was a labor organizer. Villaraigosa served as a national co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and as a member of President Barack Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board. Mr. Villaraigosa is the former head of M.E.Ch.A. (Spanish: Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán; “Chican@ Student Movement of Aztlán”, the @ being a gender neutral inflection) is an organization that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment through political action. The acronym of the organization’s name is the Spanish word mecha, which means “fuse”. The motto of MEChA is ‘La Union Hace La Fuerza’ (Unity makes strength). That’s who you expect an impartial autopsy from? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Please post a source for your Orson Bean comment.
You think his grieving family is reading this thread? No? Then why do you have a problem discussing it? ANd did you read that there are methods to kill people that are undetectable? They really exist? Not fantasy.
Odd, I read the exact opposite. His FIL was quoted as NOT knowing that Breitbart had a heart condidion. Butterdezillion is looking for any comments made before Breitbart's death about a heart condition, and she also read Orson Bean's comment that he did not know of any heart condition.
They have already crossed the rubicon of deliberate mass murder with Operation Fast And Furious/Murdergate.
Killing an AB or three now would mean nothing to them.
Exactly. Anyone who doesn’t very clearly see this has rainbow glasses on. And would have thought that Hitler didn’t really mean what he said, if they lived in Germany in the 30’s.
Actually the beauty is, whether or not Orson Bean made a comment about AB’s heart condition doesn’t matter, real or not a comment like that properly disseminated (and quickly before anyone gets any ideas) just makes the story more solid. Again, from my previous post - the way to make an ‘action’ seem to be an accident is to exploit pre-existing conditions in the target.
The setups:
You would have an alcoholic fall down stairs or out a window.
If the mark has been known to be depressed (even slightly) they would ‘commit suicide.’
For someone who is a private pilot you’d have a “malfunctioning” plane (think induced metal fatigue in the control cables).
The point is, accident or not - the public can now never be sure. This keeps the sheep properly confused - and that is the point of good wetwork! A job well done.
This post was not about whether Breitbart was assassinated. It was about whether Breitbart could LEGALLY be assassinated, and argues that according to the laws in effect at this time only the executive branch (which, I note, is currently illegally headed by Obama) can determine who is an “enemy” and thus can be LEGALLY assassinated. Presumably the POTUS can also decide by what means the assassination is to occur.
Given those things, what would LEGALLY stop Obama from deciding that Breitbart, or you or me, is an “enemy” and they will be killed by heart attack-inducing frozen poison dart?
What in our country protects us from having Obama decide we’re an enemy and kill us through covert means?
That’s what this post is about. It is a chilling question that demands an answer. Preferably from the people who passed the laws.
This thread is about whether it would be legal for Breitbart to be assassinated.
But on the subject of Breitbart’s health, I am interested if you’ve got any report pre-dating March 1, 2012 where it is said that Breitbart had a heart condition or was hospitalized within the past year, because the initial Reuters report had his father-in-law saying he knew of no cardiac problems and the spokesman for the coroner’s office saying Breitbart hadn’t been seen by a doctor for over a year.
Let's wait for the autopsy report. We do know that his business partner said he had a serious heart condition that required hospitalization just last Spring. We do know that he collapse with what looked like a massive Myocardial Infarction and we also know that the family, his company and the county all reported that he died from apparent natural causes.
Give the conspiracy theories a rest. Let Andrew rest. He deserves the rest he was a tireless warrior for the cause.
Precisely.
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.