Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens

[busybody..]

Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens.

They DIDNT say this under Bushco

WHY?

 

[busybody..]

“If the Constitution doesn’t cover terrorists why was the DOJ so hot to try them in civilian court? Somebody’s got some ‘splaining to do!”

WE KNOW WHY

 

[koalabear]

Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens.

They DIDNT say this under Bushco

WHY?

But the Constitution covers terrorists. CLOSE GITMO!!!!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

An American citizen making war against the United States from foreign shores receives his due process under the laws of war.

yes, of course

BUT

we were NOT told that 2001 - 2008

PLUS,

then WHY ARE WE GONNA BRING THEM TO TRIAL IN TEH US?

 

[JuanVato]

Kill At Will

Yep.
The government can kill you at will outside of US borders.

Scary.

No wonder some question that the governmenr killed BB.

 

[busybody..]

scary?

why?

its called WAR

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Because liberals are stupid, and liars as well. Holder finally told the truth.

neither of that is correct

 

[JuanVato]

War?

Where has the constition been suspended for US citizens?
Please post a link when that was signed.

US citizens are not the same as 3rd world serfs. We are given inalienable rights, not from government, but by the creator. Part of those rights include that the government cannot kills me, imprion me, or take my stuff without due process.

If you hate that, then perhaps North Korea, Iran, Saudi, Syria, Iraq, or Russia is a more comfortable place for you.

 

[JuanVato]

Where has the constition been suspended for US citizens?
Please post a link when that was signed.

US citizens are not the same as 3rd world serfs. We are given inalienable rights, not from government, but by the creator. Part of those rights include that the government cannot kills me, imprion me, or take my stuff without due process.

If you hate that, then perhaps North Korea, Iran, Saudi, Syria, Iraq, or Russia is a more comfortable place for you.

 

[VoteForMe]

neither of that is correct

correct that is neither of

 

[busybody..]

Where has the constition been suspended for US citizens?
Please post a link when that was signed.

US citizens are not the same as 3rd world serfs. We are given inalienable rights, not from government, but by the creator. Part of those rights include that the government cannot kills me, imprion me, or take my stuff without due process.

If you hate that, then perhaps North Korea, Iran, Saudi, Syria, Iraq, or Russia is a more comfortable place for you.

AXE HOLDER

He just gave a LEGAL OPINION on it

 

[busybody..]

AXE HOLDER

He just gave a LEGAL OPINION on it

unless you are saying

HOLDER IS A LIAR and OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL

Like Bush was

 

[VoteForMe]

unless you are saying

HOLDER IS A LIAR and OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL

Like Bush was

The never proved that

 

[Colonel Hogan]

AXE HOLDER

He just gave a LEGAL OPINION on it

Unfortunately, it was not much of one. Holder merely asserted the right to kill an American citizen on foreign soil who has directly declared his or her alignment with and support of enemies conducting attacks against the United States.

He did not give a detailed legal analysis under federal law or the laws of war. One would think the Attorney General of the United States would see the need and have the ability to construct such a legal rationale. But you know our boy Eric seems to thrive on ambiguity. The less he reveals or commits to, the more Dems have to beat up the next Republican president.

Actually, YOU raised the most relevant question earlier today. If the laws of war argue for a criminal due process outside that of the normal civilian procedure, why was the Obama administration determined to prosecute enemy combatants under a civilian process that was inappropriate for the crime being adjudicated?

Nice catch there, BB.

 

[busybody..]

Actually, YOU raised the most relevant question earlier today. If the laws of war argue for a criminal due process outside that of the normal civilian procedure, why was the Obama administration determined to prosecute enemy combatants under a civilian process that was inappropriate for the crime being adjudicated?

Nice catch there, BB.

truth is

That particular phrasing was from a letter to a blog,

Having said that

I KEPT SAYING THIS 2001-2008 and ASKING A SIMILIAR QUESTION

The same "people" that are OK with this NOW, were calling BUSH a WAR CRIMINAL THEN

What changed?

COLOR


and

PARTY


Shame on them!

 

[busybody..]

ACLU Admits Liberals Apply Double-Standard To Obama’s Targeted Killing Program Than Other Presidents…




Some things are too blatant to deny.


NEW YORK (ACLU.org) – In a speech today at Northwestern University School of Law, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke on national security issues and addressed the government’s targeted killing program.

“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact.

Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power.”

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

they should have killed Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and Charles Lindbergh bros!

Stew

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens.

They DIDNT say this under Bushco

WHY?

we all know why bro!

Stew

 

[JackLuis]

Only 'Liberal sheep' bleat to Eric's tempo, meany who opposed Bush & Co and called for their indictments, can see the same self serving horseshit that came down from the Bush Atty Generals.

"It's all be carefully analyzed and , We say it's legal."

But the Government we have, has lost the integrity to adhere to the law despite the attraction of bending the rules, just a little, there are few in the Government I'd trust with my house keys.

 

[busybody..]

 

[off2bed]

To Obama, JNap, and Holder, all of us die-hard capitalists who oppose them are terrorists. That way, they can put us in those re-education camps Larry Grathwohl told us Obama's pals Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorhn were planning.

"I want you to imagine sitting in a room with twenty five people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of twenty five million people. And they were dead serious."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

 

[JuanVato]

Bottom Line

It all comes down to this: Do you trust your government?

 

[off2bed]

How fast did the libs tear off their "Question authority" bumper stickers when Obama was elected?