DOJ: It's OK for the Govt. To Kill Citizens, Trust Us!
 |
| WHEN SHOULD I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN? |
Assassination of US Citizens
The Department of Justice
has released a document that they claim justifies the killing of U.S. citizens
in the name of national security. Michael Isikoff from NBC news publicized the DOJ’s White Paper that sets out the “legal”
authority of the President to assassinate 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? Read the full
analysis HERE
and YOU be the judge.
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.”
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. I find it very telling that our founders never
said, “Peace must be supported at all hazards.” Eliminating enemy combatants
–good; assassinating US citizens…a destructive assault on Liberty. This is the
Constitutional quagmire we have created by maintaining a completely inept
political administration that is completely ignorant of the Constitution and
the principles of Liberty it protects.
I ask you, how can
authorizing this level of arbitrary power be acceptable in the eyes of our Congress
who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States? How can these elected
representatives justify the worst arbitrary power and the most destructive
authority to our individual liberty? Read the full analysis HERE.
“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by
violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so
gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of
tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by
secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten,
is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of
arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is
everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act,
which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.
(Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Paper #84, quoting Justice Blackstone)
