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…
Ah the Clintons!
Here is a good Sunday Night Documentary to watch to see the Clinton’s in action... really worth watching to see what bad politicians are all about.
Very creepy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwV82J68Ixs
I’m also a monthly donor.
Obama is a marxist backed by powerful men without conscience. This is a fight for control of America. Do people honestly believe the marxists are going to let anyone stop them?
Do I believe Breitbart was murdered? I don't know. From what I've read, it's possible. However, we will never know.
The thread written by Null and void has no facts.
Listen to the very people close to Breitbart and what they say!
They begged that this conspiracy crap not get started! They explained his heart issue.
Why would I want to listen to a bunch of lies?
U.S. to offer legal backing for "targeted killing" (Americans overseas): source
Caution! it's on FR...
lol
We're also labeled racists. Our press would put Pravda to shame. Are you suggesting that we should be silent because the press hates truth?
This is why we don’t have a higher standing among conservatives because we keep allowing this junk.
What "conservatives" would those be? The ones that kiss liberal butt? The ones that want to be liked? And sell books?
FReepers will always be denigrated because we will NOT be silenced and we WILL question pat stories and excuses. No real conservative will accept cobwebs spun by marxists and their Pravda.
None?
JMO and YMMV.
I’ve only been here as a member a couple years but was lurking for a long time before registering. What drew me to Free Republic was the amazing research that was being done here. If it’s a bum theory it will get blasted here, which means that if it’s an unconventional theory it will either survive the scrutiny and be reinforced, or else it will be shown wrong. That’s an invaluable tool, because if I come up with a stupid idea I can be shown the evidence that refutes it and then I don’t waste my time chasing dead ends.
That’s why I don’t mind engaging with people who disagree with me, unless they go limp on me and resort to ad hominems or keep making the same already-disproven points over and over again. Steel sharpens steel and I look forward to finding somebody made of steel, as long as it’s true and not just a bunch of BS.
The discrepancies in the claims about Breitbart’s heart problem the last year need to be explained. I can understand the family and friends for the past year wanting to keep the public from knowing about a heart problem, but I can’t understand his father-in-law not knowing, or his father-in-law still trying to keep it a secret after Breitbart is already dead. And it makes no sense for the coroner’s office to say Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year if he had been hospitalized for 2 weeks with a heart attack within the last year.
If something doesn’t make sense to me I ask others to see if there’s something I’m missing. That seems like a reasonable response to discrepancies.
OK, I’m done.
If I keep it up I’m just gonna end up like AB! You fools go ahead and make FR look foolish but I’ll not be part of it!
Where was the Dan Rather forgery debunked? I’m sure that cost Free Republic a “higher standing among conservatives” - because Freepers are such “conspiracy kooks”.
Where are you hearing that Free Republic doesn’t have a high standing among conservatives because “we keep allowing this junk”? What sources are telling you that?
And BTW, I also am a monthly donor. I come here specifically because people don’t care how things APPEAR; they only care about what the facts and evidence indicate.
I post to you explaining that the Reuters article has Breitbart’s father-in-law saying he knew of no heart problems and the coroner’s office saying Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year. I note that this makes no sense if the other claims NOW being made by people close to Breitbart are true, and I ask you to explain the discrepancy...
And then you tell me that the thread has no facts.
Unbelievable.
FR has always been the place where we probe and question. This is not a gathering place for sheeple. News is torn to pieces daily and refuted. It's what FR does. Questing for truth is never wrong.
Guess again. Absolutely no way that happened!!!
Here are two major reasons why the "suicide in the White House" theory is false:
A Secret Service agent testified under oath that he saw Foster leaving the White House, on foot, at a specific exit post he was manning on the day of Foster's death, shortly after noon. The agent also recalls engaging in a brief conversation with Foster at that time. (That was the last reported sighting of Foster alive before his body was found in Fort Marcy Park in Virginia.)
The "suicide in the White House" theory fails an initial smell test: No one reported hearing a gun shot. Remember that this was during business hours on a weekday and there would be hundreds of people in the White House at the time of such a gun shot. It's almost impossible that no one would have come forward and reported such an unusual event, especially since a credible "suicide" story would have eliminated the possibility of criminal activity there.
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.