PRI: Public Radio International

Attorneys critical of AG Holder's justification for targeted killings of Americans

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:15:00 -0600

In a major policy speech at the Northwestern University Law School, attorney general Eric Holder explained, for the first time, the U.S. justification for putting Americans on a list of those who can be killed if their capture is not possible.

Clive

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:21:57 -0600

'O'Connell said Americans should be concerned that this justification could be used to allow targeted killings practically anywhere'
They already are, we (the world) just don't know it. Apart from the targeting of individuals (US citizens or not), the US governments defense of many of it's multi nationals who give support to corrupt regimes around the world probably kills millions every year. Let's not forget the US trained Osama Bin Laden.

David

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:57:26 -0600

Several thoughts.

1. If an American born terrorist wants due process, let him come home and turn himself in.
2. Someone actively engaged in recruiting and training terrorists has created their own battlefield, and should be handled accordingly.
3. What are the limits on such action? Common sense! We have the police systems in place in the US to take a suspect in custody, Britain, France, and most developed nations would do the same. Yemen does not and likely would not even if they did (think Pakistan hiding Bin Ladin). So our three options are do nothing, declare war as Greenberg suggests, or perform a quick strike. There really is only one common sense option, and that is the one taken.

DGee

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:00:33 -0600

I'm all for taking out terrorists w/o due process; however, if this becomes widely accepted, any US Citizen anywhere could be "targeted" by an administration. This is a violation of the 4th through 9th Amendments of the Constitution and severely weakens the First Amendment. This is exactly why the Secondment was written.

Sean

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:54:12 -0500

You're not seeing the big picture. A lot of the "terrorists" were Iraqis trying to get the US to pull their troops out and stop occupying the country. A lot of "terrorsts" in Afghanistan are precisely the same sort of people.

The Pentagon estimates that Al Qaeda is something like 200 to 2,000 people worldwide. That's it. We have this $700 billion military budget and our phones tapped and people like you saying that a "little" suspension of the Constitution is OK because "we're at war" and it's all over this very small group of people who have all along said that they were going to try to kill us because they didn't want us occupying their countries with US troops and supporting local dictators with US money and weapons.

What's scary about Awlaki is that until the US decided to kill him, the government told us he was a PR guy - he was the guy who wrote the magazine and press releases and gave sermons and recorded incindiary speeches. Then when they decide to assassinate him, they say, "He was in on planning attacks to kill Americans." But we never saw any evidence of this.

Remember AG Ashcroft? He made a big press conference in Russia that the FBI had just caught Jose Padilla who was an Al Qaeda operative who was just about to set off a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the United States and then two years later, the same Justice Department says that the actual plan was to rent an apartment and leave the gas stove on until the apartment filled up with gas and caused an explosion and fire.

Wow that is a huge difference. How can anyone believe what these people say when they have these huge swings like that. One day it's "Awlaki was planning to kill Americans" and you're thinking, when? How? And then later maybe they change it to, "Awlaki was IN THE PROCESS of writing an incindiary Op-Ed piece for the Cairo Morning Post."

The problem with an Executive with this much power is that you have to take their word for it why they decided to kill someone because they won't show you the evidence - it's classified.

Americans need to be a little less afraid of the "terrorists." Yes, there is a risk. Yes, it would suck to die from having some sweaty, bearded, irritating dude blow himself up standing next to you and your family. But you can't be such a sissy to deconstruct the whole society and the rule of law over this.

2,996 human beings died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But more than 500,000 Americans have died in car accidents since then. You are 167 times more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.

Yes, terrorism is a problem. Yes, we do require some national security and yes it's super irritating that the Southern border of the United States has more holes in it than a colander. But the answer is not suspending the rule of law. It's not invading Iraq and probably not invading Afghanistan either. I sincerely believe that if US troops weren't on Arab soil that there would be no attacks and there would have been no 9/11.

When the Russians were in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen engaged in "terror" attacks against Russian civilians and now Russia is having problems with Chechnya. Chechens are attacking Russian civilians because Russia is occupying Chechnya.

Americans always say that the "terrorists" attack us because they are jealous of our freedom and strip malls and movie theaters. Are the Chechens jealous of all of the Russian freedoms and how well Russians live?

These problems will continue until Americans become more knowledgeable about their own governance. If people support policies like this in America, it may become impossible to reverse this trend because anyone who is even a little successful at rousing public interest will be quickly "disappeared."