Eric Holder: U.S. Government Can Kill U.S. Citizens if the Threat is Serious and Capture "isn't feasible"

As promised, today in a speech at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to explain why targeted killings of American citizens is legal. And judging by the miserable standards of this pro-transparency administration whose president accepts transparency awards in secret, the speech was something like progress.

But really, it was mostly Holder saying no, we're allowed to do this if the threat is really, really serious and we can't capture the individuals. And don't worry, the government is carefully reviewing this. 

Holder spoke mostly broadly, mentioning the assassination of American citizen and radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki in passing. The Los Angeles Times noted that according to Holder, Awlaki was one of those people who "poses an imminent threat against the U.S, his capture is not feasible, and his slaying 'would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.'" Which is what happened in September.

As to the general legality of these (please don't call them) assassinations, here are some of Holder's more interesting comments:

Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. 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 at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles....

[T]he Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear.  Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed....

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.  The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process....

The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.  

That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight.   Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against United States citizens.

Read the rest of the remarks here. Or, as the official Department of Justice twitter put it, "Read the Attorney General's full speech on ensuring security, justice and liberty[.]"

There's much to be uncomfortable over, especially vague reassurances like "robust oversight" and sketchy, stretchy condemnations like "associated forces." And really, did Holder say anything new? The executive branch believes it has this power, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force may have granted it with its alarmingly broad scope for hunting down terrorists. We knew this already.

And it gets worse. According to the Los Angeles Times:

Holder did not mention the September slayings of Awlaki or Khan, or the reported slaying of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, in a drone attack two weeks later. Nor did he discuss the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy document giving the administration legal justification for the use of force. Indeed, he did not even acknowledge that such a document exists, although several organizations have filed suit to make it public.

Holder did not take questions from reporters after his remarks, and while he originally was going to answer questions from the law school audience, on Monday morning he abruptly canceled that plan.

The most frustrating part about this might just be how generous and transparent Obama's people think they are being by explaining this. But why bother with the speech at all if it's always going to come down to trust us, this is legal?

Reason on drones and on Eric Holder

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican||

    So much for "Due Process."

    Now it's "Justice By Expediency."

  • wareagle||

    and how does one define a "serious" threat? What constitutes a crossing of that threshold?

  • Xenocles||

    Thaaaaat's it. You're on the list.

    Both of you.

  • Father Jack||

    Feck. Happens all the time. They call it the death penalty. Drink! Arse! Girls!

  • ||

    Not many americans care about this, but libertarian logic on issues like this will only add to your obscurity.
    Get pissed, vote Obama 2012

  • wrea||

    I found a great dating bisexual site DATEBI*C'O'M. It is a serious& safe dating site for the bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships. I have to say DATEBI*COM the best site I have ever joined so far. They verify all members. Unlike other sites,NO scammers or fake profiles here, and you can meet many rich or mature women as well, including celebs, famous stars.BEST OF LUCK!

  • A Serious Man||

    Yo, yo, Barry O, how many dead kids won't you show?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    +1

  • Barack Obama||

    Your on the list, Steigerwald, for violating Secret Criterion No. 38.4 ("Maliciously +1'g Obnoxious Chants About Me")

  • Chloe||

    But that ad that ran on reason said that Obama was helping kids by not taking money from lobbyist, but taking it from other lobbyist- and protecting Warren Buffett too!!

  • The Mad Titan||

    So, are there any rulings on what constitutes due process and what doesn't?

    I feel like there are.

  • ||

    Due process is a ceremony with robed men and a grandious courtroom.

  • Sevo||

    So if the guy scares Obama and the door's locked, bombs away!

  • ||

    Because I said so
    But I stamped that with a blue ball!
    that was erased
    NO ERASECIES!

  • Old Mexican||

    Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process...


    Obama: Le Due Process c'est moi.

  • John C. Randolph||

    There is a due process for hunting down an outlaw, and that is for the congress to issue a letter of marque authorizing the executive to go get him (or kill him.)

    What's NOT due process, and will NEVER be due process, is the executive branch deciding on its own who they can kill.

    -jcr

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Awesome alt-text, or awesomost alt-text?

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    The rest of the administration can use it too.

    EPA administrator: "By the Mustache of Holder, I declare the regulation to be Constitutional!"

  • WWNGD?||

    Don't worry, the second term is always worse.

  • Shorter Eric Holder||

    Because Fuck you, that's why.

  • Erik Holder's Cat||

  • ||

    Are you guys looking forward to the announcement by the White House of the first sanctioned domestic assassination of an American citizen as much as I am? Yippee-ki-yay, mother-fuckers, because we KNOW liberty and justice are truly secure when the federal government grants itself the right to extrajudicially kill citizens.

  • ØJØʃ abiertos||

    Obama and his DOJ arrogantly announce they can kill anybody anytime on a whim. Is he losing supporters?

  • Sevo||

    Nope. It's "Bush's Fault (tm)".

  • BigT||

    Forget Waco already?

  • ||

    Good point. But it wasn't like the feds were putting out a press release whereby they said that they could cook any citizen at any time any where.

  • .||

    Not the right - the power. Governments don't have rights.

  • ||

    What I have never fully understood is why we never simply declared war on Al Qaeda and its allies. Wouldn't that allow us to do what we have been doing, but in a fully legal way? Am I missing some downside?

  • ||

    I believe war can only be declared against Nation-States.

  • WWNGD?||

    Tell that to the War on crime, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror.

  • ||

    Papaya is talking about an actual declaration of war, not a slogan made by a politician.

  • ||

    The Constitution is silent on the subject of who war can be declared against, but I'd think at a minimum it would have to be against specific groups, rather than "X and anybody who likes them".

  • Sevo||

    Not according to Holder.

  • wareagle||

    and, apparently, Holder is taking silence to mean approval.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The constitution grants the congress the power to declare war, which is understood to mean armed conflict between countries.

    It also grants the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which is what you use against barbary pirates or modern terrorists, if you care enough to observe the legalities.

    -jcr

  • Tonio||

    We were once at war with the Barbary pirates. I'm not sure they counted as a nation-state, even by the standards of the time. So, yeah, whatever they want it to mean...

  • SPLC||

    We have a list of right-wing hatemongers you can kill, Mr. Holder...

  • Fly||

    Funny, isn't it, how the SPLC has become exactly what they claim to be against:
    Collaborators with the Fascist Police State.

    I bet if they looked in the mirror they would not recognize themselves.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Wasn't it Huey Long who said that when fascism comes to America, it'll be called anti-fascism?

    QED

  • wef||

    No, it wasn't Huey Long.

    What comic books are you reading?

  • ||

    Huey Duck?

  • WWNGD?||

    Huey Lewis?

  • JBM||

    Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

  • .||

    Baby Huey?

  • Old Mexican||

    “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process...


    Of course they're the same, and the Constitution guarantees a judicial process as indicated by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. The fact that a public official who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution would be so dismissive of these basic protections should be motive of worry for anyone.

  • Gojira||

    ...a public official who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution...

    And how seriously have any of those assclowns taken that oath over the last 100 years or so?

  • ||

    Hey Jimbo, speaking of assclowns, I came across this on the TV this weekend. I watched most of it, just to drink in the horror. It was mesmerizing. I now can't figure out whether Shaggy 2 Dope is an Andy Kaufman-level comic genius who is playing all juggalos for chumps, or so retarded he makes Violent J look high-functioning.

    I recommend it to those who like to watch especially bad movies.

  • Gojira||

    No thanks. The Gathering of the Faggalos takes place in a tiny town in souther Illinois, population like 500 ppl...and it happens to be where my dad's parents are from. I've had more than enough of them for a lifetime.

  • Number 2||

    From J. Nowak and R. Rotunda, Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition, pages 510-11: "The due process clauses also have a procedural aspect in that they guarantee that each person shall be accorded a certain 'process' of they are deprived of life, liberty, or property...If life, liberty or property is at stake, the individual has a right to a fair procedure...The government always has the obligation of providing a neutral decisionmaker - one who is not inherently biased against the individual or who has a personal interest in the outcome."

    What part of this basic definition of due process do Holder and Obama not understand?

    Seems to me that an American President asserting the right to unilaterally snuff out American citizens is far more serious than a radio talk show host calling someone a slut.

  • Old Mexican||

    {I]n keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities[...]


    "The appropriate members being those that agree with our policies, of course."

    Anybody have a problem with the Executive telling Congress what it is doing instead of asking for permission to do it?

  • Gojira||

    Anybody have a problem with the Executive telling Congress what it is doing instead of asking for permission to do it?

    Congress certainly doesn't. They love it. Nothing is their fault, so they aren't held accountable for any of it.

  • ||

    The American voters love it too.

  • ||

    he originally was going to answer questions from the law school audience, on Monday morning he abruptly canceled that plan.

    Huh.

  • ||

    They had intelligence that Lonewacko was bringing his camera phone.

  • ||

    the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities

    "Dude- Joe Liebermann and Pete King said it was okay, why are you bitching?"

  • Eric Holder||

    Laugh it up smart guys. I'm starting to suspect that capturing some of you is not going to be feasible.

  • ||

    Let me be clear

    God damn, they love using this phrase, especially when not being clear.

  • Gojira||

    You're just too goddamned stupid to follow their brilliant oratory. Don't hold your shortcomings against them.

  • Almanian||

    He's dead, Jim...

  • Gojira||

    Damnit Jim I'm a fascist apologist, not a damned political speechwriter!

  • Almanian||

    1) I blame Bush
    2) Team Red did the same thing and you didn't say anything about that, so....!
    3) We'll kill you if we think you're icky. We define what "icky" means.
    4) Sreep tight, fucking Mongorians!

    That is all

  • Sevo||

    Almanian|3.5.12 @ 7:45PM|#
    "1) I blame Bush"

    Whoa, hold it! 'Nuff said right there.

  • ||

    Eric Holder is using the same old 'justifications' used by every other government-sanctioned murderer from Aelius Sejanus to Lavrentiy Beria.

  • Almanian W, Bush||

    Ain't none o' them from Texas, I bet...

  • Almanian||

    Also - a Scotsman won the World Sheep Shearing contest.

    *shocked face*

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm so glad you said "Shearing." The New Zealanders won that other contest.

  • brad||

    So the government knew exactly where Awlaki was in order to kill him with a targeted drone strike, but capture wasn't feasible?

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Someone would have had to go to Yemen. Top Men, do not want to go to Yemen, and Top Men are who's involved.

  • ||

    Ye. Men.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Top. Men. i.e. Fucking Pussies.

  • Top Man||

    I suppose you could pick someone up with a drone, smart guy?

  • Tom Tautology||

    conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles

    Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

  • Almanian||

    We have it on good authority that we were within the law on this one.

    Good. Authority.™

  • ØJØʃ de aguila||

    Besides, there is no over-riding legal authority that says they CAN'T do whatever in the fuck they want.

    "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS."

    Where is Old Albert Jr lately?

  • The Left||

    Works for us!

  • Modern ProAggressive||

    What's the big deal?

  • NeoCons||

    We're jealous!

  • John Asscroft||

    Why didn't I think of that?

  • Truth Team||

    he originally was going to answer questions from the law school audience

    I'm sure he'll be happy to take them via whitehouse.gov.

  • Almanian Jung Un||

    Rucy Stiggerwaarrrrrr? She may be a probrem.

    I would hate for her to see the same fate as - say - HANS BRIX!

  • ||

    I almost lost my coffee.

  • Freud Un||

    You mean ... the "Silver Skates"?

  • ||

    "According to my model, my predictions are correct."

  • Anil Yeaste||

    Moreover, it's an expensive, time-consuming, computationally-intensive model.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Assassinations are unlawful killings.

    Wrong. Murder is an unlawful killing. Manslaughter is an unlawful killing. An assassination is a killing carried out against ones' enemies for political, religious, or financial gain.

    In the Soviet Union, assassinating political opponents was perfectly legal if the Politburo willed it. Hell, going further back, the Writ of Outlawry made any willing man an assassin of the government who killed an outlaw.

    Eric Holder's legal jujitsu is mad weak.

  • wef||

    You are showing your age.

    Assassination these days is called post-natal abortion.

  • Planned Parenthood||

    +1

  • ||

    Now that you mention it, I still question the use of "assassination" when applied to the murder of John Lennon.

  • sarcasmic||

    That word is used when the person killed is famous.

    And don't forget to include the killer's middle name.

  • Almanian||

    John Doohickey Lennon.

    Oh, wait - the killer.

    I don't know The Killer's lead singer's middle name. They're a little lite for my tastes.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens. When such individuals take up arms against this country – and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans – there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. We must take steps to stop them – in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.

    So, who here is guilty of conspiring with Al-Qaeda Emmanuel Goldstein?

  • imhotep||

    Eric Holder is a dispicable cunt. He is a prostitute who hates freedom and would drink your blood if it would save the company. FTP that is all.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: imhotep,

    Eric Holder is a dispicable cunt.


    I'm pretty sure that being dispicable must be 10 times worse than being despicable.

  • ||

    Damn, I should've gone to this. When I was at NU Law, there were plenty of profs there to skewer any Bush/Republican staffers who came to speak. Would've been curious to see if any of them had the stones to stand up to Holder when he made essentially the same arguments.

  • Left||

    Didn't we teach you anything, it is perfectly acceptable when we do it.

  • ||

    This is the Most Transparent Administration in History; they don't allow questions because questions are unnecessary.

  • Barack Obama||

    Hey man, I am transparent! Only not in the way you thought I meant.

  • A Serious Man||

    They'll just say they are "disappointed" in Obama but will vote for him away because he's better than all the Republicans running except He Who Must Not Be Named by the Media.

  • FreeLibertine||

    Obama should lose the civil liberties vote, the marijuana vote, and the anti-war vote.

  • Chloe||

    Well, I'm still horrified.

  • ||

    So Holder uses the "let me be clear" and "there are some who say" tics now?

  • Chloe||

    Same speech writer, same tics.

  • Copernicus||

    You know when you've been together for a long time, you begin to start each others sentences.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They should serve their own sentences.

  • DK||

    ...the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities...

    And, who are these members? Maybe the beloved 4th Estate should be asking questions of these people.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process ..."

    I suppose that whole thing about "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury" is no longer operative.

  • Eric Holder||

    The fifth amendment is icky.

  • Ezra Klein||

    It's like a hundred years old and stuff.

  • Duderonomy||

    It's like soooo over

  • Eric Holder||

    We have it on good authority that this is true.

  • Eric Holder II||

    And the Rich White Men who wrote it owned slaves!

  • ||

    He also forgets that it says "due process of law", which implies judicial activity.

  • Eric Holder||

    Let me be clear, there are some who would say that, but it is simply not true.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unless you have a PHD from an approved university you are not qualified to interpret the complex language of the Constitution.

    You see when you have a degree from the proper institution you become able to see the invisible words that mere mortals cannot see, and you can unsee the words that mere mortals see.

    For example mere mortals see "Congress shall make no law", but enlightened law professors see "Congress shall make no law MAKE ANY LAW THEY PLEASE! WHY? FUCK YOU THAT'S WHY! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA MOTHERFUCKERS HAAAAAAAAA! SUCKERS! YOU REALLY THOUGHT A PIECE OF PAPER CAN STOP THE GUYS WITH THE GUNS? FUCK YOU! HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHA!"

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    +1 to Sarcasmic. -100000000 to everyone.

  • Tony||

    That's what I've been telling all of you, sarcasmic.

  • ||

    What's notably missing from Holder's criteria is a finding that killing the person reduces or removes the threat in a significant way. Without that element his claim that waiting for a judicial warrant would put American lives at risk kind of falls apart.

  • ||

    What's most notably missing from Holder is anything even remotely resembling passable justification. The man's a fucking moron, and whoever writes his speeches for him is an even bigger moron.

  • Almanian||

    This. I find both Holder and the POTUS to appear to be far less than smart. Much less the SOOPER OMFG!! smart that teh left loves to put forth.

    Silver tongued, semi-smart people to avoid.

  • L13||

    Oh-bumma' Holder is starting to make W's Yoo look like Madison himself.

  • Almanian||

    No he's not. He's just making himself look more like Trotsky every day.

  • Sevo||

    "He's just making himself look more like Trotsky every day."
    So he's proposing further 'revolution'? Sounds to me like he's merely justifying O'Stalin's claim of primacy.

  • Almanian||

    You know who else proposed further revolution...

  • Saul Alinsky||

    Me?

  • Occutards||

    Us?

  • GILMORE||

    "Let me be clear: there are some who say that change is not easy, and won't happen overnight. We do not accept this, and are totally committed to a future in which all our hopes can be realized. Let us not fear facing the challenges of the future. A future in which every American, regardless of race, creed, background or education, that can, will, could, would, and should be killed by my Administration, is, so long as the proper oversight is conducted. Oversight which I will ensure is entirely transparent, bipartisan, and conducted in the best interests of every American, who should rest easy knowing that if they are to be murdered by their government, it was done with the full faith and integrity of the public servants of this great nation. Make no mistake - with every American who we determine to arbitrarily murder, it is a step forward to a better day. God bless America. "

  • Kathleen Sebelius||

    Snuffing American citizens reduces the cost of health care! That is why we are mandating that employers and insurance companies pay for drone attacks.

  • ||

    i realize ideologues and reasonoids use grossly distorted terminology and avoid "bad sound" ACCURATE terms
    let's be fucking honest here.

    call it what it is.
    ASSASSINATION

    killing the enemy is not "negative deployment".

    i had a sgt. once return a report to me because i said "i interrogated the suspect"

    "we use the term... "took his statement" not "interrogate"... give me fucking break.

    i INTERROGATED him

    the first step in honest debate is to be honest in our terminology and not pick and choose terms that beg the question and/or minimize what happened

    oh, and like a certain poster here referred to a suspect who received almost no injuries as having the "shit kicked out of him"
    this SHOULD be tangential to whether one accepts the policy as valid or not.

    one should have the stones to say,"i do/dont support assassination under these limited circ's"

  • John C. Randolph||

    a suspect who received almost

  • ||

    when u use a term like "he got the shit kicked out of him" that means something that most people agree, not some minor scratches

    we all know what that means. but people like to play games to taint the discussion

    it's like the article headline that said the court ok'd cops to SEARCH a cell phone w/o warrant

    not really

    most people would think that meant the cops could look through the phone, at texts, numbers called, etc

    all the court said was they could access the data menu to determine the phone's PHONE #.

    i can't stand little games like that.

    let's be adults ok.

    again, he did not have th shit beat out of him. not even CLOSE.

    it's not how people who WANT to have rational discussion discourse. it's how ideologues play. it's what we criticize the media for doing with evul mooslums etc. then we do it ourselves because trying to prove our point is more important than honesty

  • John C. Randolph||

    a suspect who received almost no injuries

    That's what you call it when you remember to use the rubber hose and not leave many visible marks, right?

    You're not a lawman, Dunphy. You're an obedience enforcer for a criminal regime.

    -jcr

  • ||

    and this is another thing people with no interest in rational discussion do. turn a discussion of ideas into (unfounded personal insults)

  • John C. Randolph||

    unfounded personal insults

    "almost no injuries"

    Fuck you, pig.

    -jcr

  • ||

    he had minor injuries. he did not have the "shit kicked out of him" , or other such rhetoric.

    i realize you have nothing, but please get a life

  • NL_||

    I'm a student at NU law. I declined to attend his apologia to flying murderbots.

  • ||

    "In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not," he said in remarks prepared for a speech at Northwestern University's law school in Chicago.

    You disgusting piece of shit cocksucker. I spit on your flag and your authority. "In this hour of danger." You arrogant cock.

  • ||

    for the record, legislation or not, *if* (and it's a huge if), the feds had somebody in their crosshairs who they thought was TRULY a imminent danger to the nation's safety as a whole if not taken out immediately, they would take him out

    that's ALWAYS been true and always will be

    anybody who thinks otherwise lives in fantasyland

  • John C. Randolph||

    , the feds had somebody in their crosshairs who they thought was TRULY a imminent danger to the nation's safety

    And if it's a 14 year-old kid, surrounded by other children who have never been charged with any crime?

    -jcr

  • ||

    i'm talking pragmatically. do you have ANY doubt that in a situation where the feds thouhgt, with what they believed was strong intel, that they had a guy in their crosshairs who was about to do some serious terrorist act that they wouldn't take him out in a heartbeat?

    cmon. pj orourke had a term for this that escapes me. but again, the reality is that ... law or not, the govt. in pretty much any nation on earth will do this and it's been done many times before

    that's simply the way the real world works

    and of course the ignorati will read this as some kind of endorsement of this, which it's not

  • John C. Randolph||

    Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to explain why targeted killings of American citizens is legal.

    There's just that little problem that it's not.

    The fifth amendment is perfectly clear, and Holder and Obama's attempt to pretend that a presidential edict is "due process" is a violation of the oath of office that they both took.

    -jcr

  • ||

    [T]he Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some...and that Americans would be killed.

    No, you authoritarian cocksucker, it doesn't work that way. And you know it doesn't you murderous fuck. You only get authority when the constitution explicitly gives it to you. You don't get to say, "hey, it doesn't say we can't do it, so we can." Fuck you. Well, it also doesn't say you can't tie Sugarfree down and hold his eyes open, a la Clockwork Orange, and make him watch you fuck Warty in the ass, but I am sure that doesn't mean that that Constitution allows it.

    But hey Eric. I admit you corrupt fuck, it is pretty ballsy. You get to tell people you can kill them, then get to give yourself your own little fucking bullet points that you voluntarily imposed upon yourself of when you will circumscribe yourself from just fucking killing someone.

    Fuck you.

  • ||

    fyi, it's the ludovico technique.

    last seen on robot chicken iirc

  • Air Max||

    while he originally was going to answer questions from the law school audience, on Monday morning he abruptly canceled that plan.

  • ||

    Looks like a pretty solid plan to me dude.

    www.Go-Anon.tk

  • Number 6||

    As of 12:19pm on March 6, 2010, there is not a single story on my iGoogle Top Stories box on Holder's declaration that the Pres can snuff anyone without needing to obtain permission or clearance from anyone else, due process be damned.

    But there are 6,406 stories on how Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart "stuck it" to Rush Limbaugh last night.

    Glad the media have their priorities straight.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John C. Randolph|3.6.12 @ 2:50AM|#

    There is a due process for hunting down an outlaw, and that is for the congress to issue a letter of marque authorizing the executive to go get him (or kill him.)

    What's NOT due process, and will NEVER be due process, is the executive branch deciding on its own who they can kill.

    -jcr

  • Neu Mejican||

    Repeated for emphasis.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement