All Articles All Articles


Eric Holder: It's OK for POTUS to Assassinate Americans On American Soil

Eric Holder: It's Ok for POTUS to Assassinate Americans on American Soil

By Dennis Loo (3/7/13)

In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to questions posed during John Brennan’s Senate confirmation hearings as CIA Director in Congress, Holder states the following:

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

In other words, the chief law enforcement official in the U.S. is now stating on the record that the POTUS can legally order a drone attack (or other lethal force) on Americans on American soil.

Not to worry, however, as Holder also said:

The question you have posed is... entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.

That’s reassuring. It’s “entirely hypothetical” and “we hope no president will ever have to confront” it.

When the memo was released just last month by a whistleblower to NBC News that set forth the “legal” argument justifying the POTUS using drones to kill even Americans, a student of mine asked if I thought that the U.S. government would ever dare to attack Americans on American soil. I said that I thought it was possible and that the direction of governance has been towards allowing more and more executive actions without any restrictions or supervision. Sooner than I expected, however, we get within a week of that conversation confirmation that the White House and the Attorney General (who is officially separate from the White House) consider it “constitutional” and “legal” for the POTUS to do just that.

This follows a larger trend in which the barriers between the foreign arena and the domestic have been increasingly knocked down, both in the realm of the use of military force and in the realm of public opinion making.

During the 2008 presidential race, for example, people who were peacefully demonstrating in the streets against the GOP national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul were pursued and attacked by police announcing that their “right of assembly” now constituted “an illegal assembly” and using anti-personnel weapons that had previously only been used abroad. This included weapons that burn the skin from afar and percussion devices that batter the skin from afar, besides the conventional tear gas. Members of the non-violent “RNC Welcoming Committee” had their headquarters raided before the convention and before they even had a chance to take to the streets and peacefully demonstrate. They were arrested and charged as “domestic terrorists” and at least one of them described his beating by the police in fashion that approached torture.

In another example, in the most recent iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 that prohibited the U.S. government from using propaganda explicitly to shape public opinion against Americans in the U.S., was nullified. In a story that I broke back in 2009, the Obama Administration’s DoD was training all of its employees that legal protest was “low-level terrorism.” The Posse Comitatus Act that prohibited the use of military force within the U.S. was overturned under Bush. Whistleblowers like PFC Bradley Manning and journalists like Julian Assange are suitable for assassination...The list for this is long and growing almost by the week.

That might be an exaggeration. It is more like by the month.

The logic of this process is inescapable, however. As long as the so-called “war on terror” continues to be the central social problem around which all other public policies are organized and take second place to, then this WOT, which I have described in my book Globalization and the Demolition of Society as “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy,” a sickness of parents who surreptitiously harm their own children in order to ensure that their child is entirely dependent upon them, then the enemies who used to be “merely” all Arabs and those who look like Arabs and Muslims, to now include Americans on American soil, will soon be your next door neighbor, suitable for ordering a drone attack on. Only, you better not be home when the attack comes because these drones aren’t as surgical as they say they are… 


0 # Jessica Rodriguez 2014-06-05 22:48
:eek: Attacking people from other countries sounds bad enough but having drones which have the aim of drunk (exaggerating) attack people on U.S soil!! Why dont they report this type of new on TV instead of what Justin Bieber does or said/says. Spying on people is bad and disturbing. endangering innocent children, and women/men.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code