Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,044 posts)
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 01:28 AM Mar 2012

U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

Source: NY Times

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

(...)

Still, the speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo — or in an account of its contents published in October by The New York Times based on descriptions by people who had read it.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html



Sadly, this story will be buried in page A18 of Tuesday's Times.
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Response to alp227 (Original post)

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
2. Just how could a person in Yemen pose an "imminent" threat to a person
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 02:27 AM
Mar 2012

in the US? Yemen is a long way away, and as far as I know the terrorists don't have a competent army or jet planes or missiles or anything that complex. I can't quite picture how that individual in Yemen could pose an "imminent" threat. Can anyone help here?

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
6. Sure, it's quite simple
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 06:44 AM
Mar 2012

If the existence of someone in Yemen may cause publicity or news that negatively impacts anyone in the government or corporations protected by the government, they are imminently threatened by that person. If the news DOES make anyone in government or business look bad, the threat has been carried out.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
8. I guess no-one in Afghanistan posed an imminent threat to anyone on Sept. 10, 2001.
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:58 PM
Mar 2012

Does that satire answer your question?

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
9. They posed a threat while they were in Afghanistan,
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:02 PM
Mar 2012

but that threat did not become imminent until they were in the US.

A country with air power might pose an imminent threat to the US, but a terrorist in Yemen does not pose an imminent threat. It is someone in the US or near US assets that poses an imminent threat to us.

Some very important information is missing from this story. I have no idea what it is, but as told, it does not make sense to me.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
11. Depends on how you define "imminent."
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:47 AM
Mar 2012

Any plane that passes through a country in which terrorists are believed to reside should be carefully checked.

Response to alp227 (Original post)

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
12. The Pinkertons are back, it is legal to kill "bad guys"
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:40 AM
Mar 2012

The Classic Example is the Pinkerton's attempt to kill Jessie James, by throwing a bomb into his mother's house, wounding her (She lost an arm) AND killing their eight year old brother.

More on the bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James#Pinkertons

The Pinkerton's reputation was so "High" among working class people that during the 1892 Homestead Strike, the strikers on heating that the Pinkertons were on they way, stormed the Steel Mill (The strikers had stayed outside of the Mill till then), went to where the Barge with Pinkerton Agents on it was trying to land, and opened fired on the barge. Some of the workers even took an old Civil War Cannon and tried to hit the barge with it (difficult shot, shooting down hill with a muzzle loaded cannon using powder made and marketed for muzzle loading rifles, thus of varying grade so each shot produced a new shot pattern). Fortunity for the Pinkerton Agents the Cannon missed (And the Strike Leaders were doing all they could to STOP the shooting, including the Cannon shots. This incident was the chief reason most Civil War Cannons were removed from larger cities as monuments at that time period, many would stay as war memorials till WWII in small towns, but NOT in Cities).

I bring up Homestead for such killings tend to bring with it hatred and fear as shown in the Shooting of the Pinkerton Agents in 1892. This took decades for the Pinkerton agency to live down (And an abandonment of Strike braking efforts by the Pinkertons do the the change in the law that you had to be a resident of the state for at least one year before you could become a Law Enforcement Officer, the Pinkertons favorite tactic was to bring in a battalion of thugs and have the local Sheriff deputize them, thus making it "legal" for the thugs to kill anyone, the Pinkertons would then reward anyone who did the shooting with their entire pay and a bonus and a railroad ticket out of town, so the shooter would be long gone by the time anyone could file criminal charges against the Shooter).

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. Law May Allow Killin...