The Answer, Robert Mueller, Is “Yes, DOJ Does Believe It Could Kill a Citizen in the US”

FBI Director Robert Mueller tried to avoid answering whether or not we can target US citizens in the United States.

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.

“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting

Yoder followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.

When Fox asked DOJ for clarification, a spokesperson said the framework as laid out by Holder applied abroad, and she couldn’t imagine a scenario in which it would happen domestically.

But of course, everyone is simply dodging. DOJ knows well their legal logic, such as it is, would permit the due process free killing of an American in America. After all, Eric Holder claimed in his speech that Congress had not limited the geographic scope of the government’s authority to use force.

Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.   Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan.   We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.

Jeh Johnson said the same in a recent speech, specifically in the context of domestic authorities.

Third: there is nothing in the wording of the 2001 AUMF or its legislative history that restricts this statutory authority to the “hot” battlefields of Afghanistan.  Afghanistan was plainly the focus when the authorization was enacted in September 2001, but the AUMF authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force against the organizations and persons connected to the September 11th attacks – al Qaeda and the Taliban — without a geographic limitation.

And on Monday, when Holder objected to calling assassinations assassinations, he did not limit their claimed legality to overseas locales.

Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

But long before Johnson and Harris made these arguments it became clear that the legal analysis had to permit the targeting of American citizens within the US.

That’s because the legal case cited to get from capturing a US citizen (based on the precedent of Hamdi) to killing him is Scott v. Harris, an entirely domestic case.

It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.

You can’t very well argue that, having determined a US citizen to be a lawful target under the AUMF and then claimed, as they did with Awlaki, that they had no way of capturing him safely, they couldn’t assassinate him in the US, too. If a police officer can use deadly force to stop a high speed car chase, then counterterrorism officials would not hesitate to use whatever means to kill a terrorist.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

32 Responses to The Answer, Robert Mueller, Is “Yes, DOJ Does Believe It Could Kill a Citizen in the US”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @caidid Late night/early mooring Twitter is sparse. Easier for those of us in the west.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @nigelduara @jackgillum Ha! Nope, seriously, this was great work.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski @TrialDiariesJ @michaelbkiefer a non-DP 1st degree plea, you are a bigger idiot than you seem. That was the "way" referred to
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski @TrialDiariesJ @michaelbkiefer It was an hour and a half you disingenuous twit, and if you don't think you can get LWOP on...
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @nigelduara @jackgillum Hey, this conversation looks like fun, can I play too? Also, nice work by AP.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski Why don't you go fuck yourself.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski @TrialDiariesJ @michaelbkiefer I admitted I made an inadvertent mistake in haste, get over yourself jerk.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski @TrialDiariesJ @michaelbkiefer I've been practicing criminal law here in AZ for 25+ years. My memory is fine asshole.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimDaniielski @TrialDiariesJ @michaelbkiefer Hey jerko, I was in a movie theater and typed something on a phone as the movie was starting.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @trevortimm Maybe, maybe not. That enhanced offense level from 21 to 23. But could have still been sentenced to the 48 months on a level 21
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @prosediva It gets better. It has to!
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @LegallyErin @chrisgeidner Well, you know if they got the local disability judges too... #WhatTheFuckIsWrongInAlabama
4hreplyretweetfavorite