AG Sort of Explains When and Why the President Could Drop a Bomb on You

"The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport."

In case you missed it, the Attorney General of the United States spent a little time yesterday discussing the circumstances under which the President could order your death without having a trial or even having charged you with any crime.

[...] The lowlights of the speech, I think, were Holder's promise that no citizen would be blown up unless the government had determined (among other things) "that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States," and his somewhat unusual definition of "due process."

First, it turns out that "imminent" doesn't mean what you think it means (or what the dictionary thinks it means). Rather, the concept "incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States." If you see anything in there that has to do with being "imminent," please let me know. The "future" is a big place, and just because something might be in it does not make that thing "imminent."

Second, Holder did promise that nobody would be killed without "due process." Comforting! But no! Because this also doesn't mean what you think it means. "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same," Holder said, "particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." Oh. So what process are we due? Executive process. But have no fear, you won't be put on a death list without a "thorough and careful review" of the (secret) evidence against you by the Executive Branch, Holder basically promised. So there's really no need to get those other branches involved. Let's just keep this between us.

Previously, previously.

Tags: , , ,

7 Responses:

  1. CJ says:

    This reminds me of when Holder decided to send terrorists to trial, but only the ones we knew for certain would be found guilty.

    That's a lot like Due Process, right?

  2. I am standing by my current plan of (a) voting for the rotting corpse of Gus Hall, and then (b) praying like hell for the Zombie Apocalypse so that ol' Gus will actually be able to take office. (Preferably after gnawing his way through the intestines of most of the current and previous administrations.)

  3. phessler says:

    I like how he explained that this is not an "assassination", because those are illegal.

  4. Chris Davies says:

    "I should not call it a sport." Holder would later explain, "Not when I'm wearing my coarsing gaiters."

  5. gryazi says:

    Give this man a Nobel Peace Prize!

  6. DaveL says:

    But how could it go wrong? He's working for the good guys, and they'll be in power forever.

  7. Nedly says:

    I really like how Holder is giving them a sporting "due process" kind of chance..[AG Sort of Explains When and Why the President Could Drop a Bomb on You] http://bit.ly/ABjcIr http://bit.ly/AkBwAW