Obama can have you killed. But only if he wants to.
Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often. Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show. I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say. And I’m really smrt. (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose. Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic. I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they
married know me).
As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief. I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons. The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans. Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:
Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’
Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’
Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.
Look, I’m down with killing terrorists. But the foregoing is asinine. First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids. What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean? Who decides? The President decides, that’s who. All by himself.
Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing. It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution. The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen. That should concern you. Why? Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.
I know, I know…I can hear you now. “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’ San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.” Well, here’s Holder again:
‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.
In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere. Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic. Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen. Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time. Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t. Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up. Again, this should concern you.
The Constitution guarantees due process. What is due process? It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court. Why do we have due process? Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials. According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:
As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’
When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same. The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy. Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself. There’s been no vote; no legislative process. Just one man’s ideas.
I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi. It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make. That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history. Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him. So did Hitler. And Pol Pot. The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”
Am I being extreme? Maybe. After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here. And maybe they’re right. Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.