Assassination of US Citizens
 In the beginning, the DOJ
legal argument attempts to make it appear that only "U.S. citizens who
are senior operational leaders of al-Qua'ida or an associated force of
al-Qua'ida" are considered eligible for assassination. However, by the
end of the analysis, the DOJ document has moved beyond "foreign countries"
to include any
geographic area and authorizes lethal force against any person
classified as a potential
hostile by the President or by any "high level official of the U.S.
government "even
when there is no evidence to support such an accusation.
Sound too "Orwellian" to be true? Sadly, it is not.In the DOJ's paper "Imminent threat" is redefined to include a citizen plotting about some threat at some distant time. The government does not have "to have clear evidence that a specific attack...will take place in the immediate future." And though much is made about the Law of War, the citizen to be assassinated can be far from the "actual hostility." The DOJ eliminates the barriers of "geographic limitations," and asserts the ability to "follow" the target to a "a new nation." Let us not forget the provisions of the NDAA that allow the President to transfer the powers under the "Law of War" to the FBI, making it possible for that "new nation" to be the U.S. No Constitutional protections, no review of a judge, no jury of your peers, no requirement of actual "imminent threat," and no need for you to be caught on the battlefield (unless you remember that the government has already declared the ENTIRE PLANET to be a battlefield!). In criminal court, to put someone in prison or sentence them to death, the burden of proof that must be met by the government is "beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt." In order to get a search warrant the Fourth Amendment requires the government to meet the standard of "probable cause" as reviewed and approved by a judge. The Fifth Amendment requires that before the government can take someone's life they are guaranteed an  indictment by a grand jury
and conviction by a jury of their peers. One would think that at least these
standards would apply if the government is going to take a citizen's life.
Unfortunately that is not the case here and the only reference the DOJ makes
to the Constitution is to point out that it DOESN'T APPLY! What is the burden
of proof for the President to assassinate US citizens? According to the DOJ,
the government must simply "demonstrate" that the United States'
interest in preventing an anticipated threat of violence outweighs "the
person's interest in his life," again, with no "clear evidence that a specific attack...will
take place in the immediate future." Citing their
standard of proof, the government quotes the court of Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at
535: "the Court accords the greatest of respect and consideration to the
judgments of military authorities...the
scope and discretion of that discretion is necessarily wide."
And of course in this case, that scope the government asserts, would be
transferred to the "high-level official of the U.S. government"
making the determination.It is interesting to note that throughout its paper the DOJ continually appeals to the "government's inherent right to defend itself" while this administration does not seem to recognize such a right among its citizens. Will we be given the same deference when we defend ourselves? Will George Zimmerman be given an inherent right to self-defense under the same standards as the government asserts? Apparently this administration only claims such a right for the government? The framers said each of us have an inherent right to self-defense (Sam Adams said, "The rights of the colonists are these; First life, Secondly liberty, and third property and the ability to defend them"). What's the Big Deal? What is wrong with the Executive branch of a government engaging in the assassination of our citizens, who are classified by the government as combatants against this country, absent due process? If they can do this without a "speedy and public trial," we are trusting the government to convey truthful and accurate information to justify their actions. Our founders were intimately aware that the governments often have their own perspective on things and have the power and tools to justify their actions at all levels. Their point would be that a government not only has an agenda, but also has the power to control and manipulate information. Richard Henry Lee stated that we must not only guard against "what men do, but what they may do." They knew the unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people. What about the fact that the government has already redefined who is a "terrorist"? Just look at Janet Napolitano's report, as head of the Department of Homeland Security, warning America regarding who is a terrorist; "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms - and returning war veterans. "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." can Our founders knew that in a government that has the ability to define the enemy, and the uninhibited inclination to define its own citizens as terrorists, tyranny is already established. Unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people. It is Liberty that is the most important asset to any peace loving nation. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said, "Those who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security." How could he make such a bold statement? Because he knew from history that trading Liberty will NEVER result in greater security and once Liberty is traded, you never get it back. For Our Children, KrisAnne KrisAnne Hall President About KrisAnne Hall:  KrisAnne
Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from
her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled
veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a
patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial
Circuit, gave her a choice - give up her First Amendment right to speak on
her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are
worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." KrisAnne now
serves as Unite In Action's President and Director of Legal Affairs and
travels the country teaching the Constitution and the history that gave us
our founding documents.Unite In Action, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, managed by an all-volunteer staff, which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues. For more information, please go to www.UniteInAction.org or write us at PO Box 398, Nashville TN 37011-0398. |
.
1 comment:
We dont get to correct you?You wont post corrections.Disinfo agent!
Post a Comment