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

/32 Comments/in , , /by

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.

image_print
32 replies
  1. prostratedragon says:

    To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one’s opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it.
    —George Orwell, “In Front Of Your Nose”

  2. rosalind says:

    Aljazeera Tweets:

    Is there a legal basis for killing US citizens deemed a threat to the USA? Join us w/ @PJCrowley @colmorrisdavis & @JameelJaffer @7:30PMEST.

  3. rugger9 says:

    What a crock by Mueller. There is no doubt whatsoever that he’s been around the block long enough to know he would be asked that very question, and he’s already settled on the IDunno answer to buy time for the firestorm to blow over. Recall how many Rs from “St Ronnie” on down, especially the Bu$hies, had selective amnesia about “difficult” to dodge questions like this, it’s a deflection tool and nothing else.

    The fact the committee let him get away with it [in contrast to what the crazy wingnut tried to do to Warren not long ago] tells me they’re fine with the non-answer and are perfectly willing to let someone else do their job.

  4. jerryy says:

    Drunk from the power they have, these folks just do not think they will ever be accountable for what they are doing. Not in this life or in any life to come.

    After all of the time the administration has had to prepare an answer for their assassinations, the speech given by Attorney General Holder, immediately after he gave it, was easily trashed because it was so bad. The ideas he laid out are not some thoughtful approach to a harsh problem, thoughful and seemingly reasonable maybe, flawed still yet so subtlely that it would take someone who has years of deep training and intensive skilled practice to find the errors. The bad juju was obvious right away, even to casual onlookers.

    They just do not care. The speech was defiant, this is how it is, get used to it.

    Jonathan Turley remarked that at least Holder was not hunting us in the streets for sport. Not yet, Jonathan.

  5. newz4all says:

    A recent Supreme Court ruling is forcing the FBI to deactivate its GPS tracking devices in some investigations, agency director Robert Mueller said Wednesday.

    Mueller told a congressional panel that the bureau has turned off a substantial number of GPS units and is using surveillance by agents instead.

    “Putting a physical surveillance team out with six, eight, 12 persons is tremendously time intensive,” Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee. The court ruling “will inhibit our ability to use this in a number of surveillances where it has been tremendously beneficial.”

    Mueller declined to say how many devices were deactivated. The FBI’s general counsel said at a law school conference two weeks ago that the FBI has 3,000 GPS devices.

    http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-chief-describes-gps-problem-court-ruling-195620051.html

  6. newz4all says:

    Supreme Court Ruling Prompts FBI to Turn Off 3,000 Tracking Devices

    A Supreme Court decision has caused a “sea change” in law enforcement, prompting the FBI to turn off nearly 3,000 Global Positioning System (GPS) devices used to track suspects, according to the agency’s general counsel.

    When the decision – US v. Jones – was released at the end of January, agents were ordered to stop using GPS devices immediately and told to await guidance on retrieving the devices, FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann said in a recent talk.

    Weissmann said it wasn’t Scalia’s majority opinion that caused such turmoil in the bureau, but a concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

    Alito focused not on the attachment of the device, but the fact that law enforcement monitored Jones for about a month. Alito said “the use of longer-term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.”

    In his talk at a University of San Francisco Law Review Symposium, Weissmann suggested that Alito’s concurrence means that several members of the court are concerned with long-term surveillance by technologies beyond GPS systems and that the FBI needs new guidance in order to ensure that evidence does not get thrown out.

    Catherine Crump, and attorney with the ACLU, welcomed the court’s ruling as a first step toward preserving privacy rights.

    “Alito’s concurrence concerned the FBI because if tracking someone’s movements violates their privacy, that should be true no matter what technology the FBI uses,” says Crump. “The FBI now needs to give guidance to agents in the field, and the Alito decision raises serious questions about the constitutionality of other ways of tracking suspects.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-ruling-prompts-fbi-turn-off-3-154046722–abc-news.html

  7. Frank33 says:

    We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.

    Liar liar pants on fire. The great myth of the neo-cons, “a stateless enemy”. No it is a criminal gang, who use terror because they are shock doctrinists. Bin Laden had a financial network that remains concealed. Al Qaeda made “puts” and “calls” for airlines and Oil, when they murdered people. They got that idea from the Carlyle Group.

    The terrorists shift from country to country, Afghanistan to Pakistan, with US Intelligence authorities assisting and protecting ISI Pakistan terror. US intelligence authorities allowed Bin Laden to be shifted to Afghanistan by double agent Ali Mohamed.

    Holder, and his cronies, profit from their state sponsored terrorism, same as Buzzy Krongard and Goldman Sachs. They have to lie every day to conceal that it is State Sponsored Terrorism. Holder has a few other scandals to conceal. Worst Attorney General, ever? Second Worst.

  8. Ben Franklin says:

    The FBI is, apparently, populated by rejected CIA applicants. Any spook-worthy FBI agent or Director would know how to issue a non-denial, denial.

    BTW; I presume the ATF is populated with FBI rejects, so the domestic front has that going for it.

  9. Story of O says:

    Hey, give Mueller a break. Since we’re not a nation of laws, he always has to run to the president every time to see what he says is currently legal.

  10. MadDog says:

    OT – In alignment with my comment last week about Israel pulling the strings to get their “big dummy” to do their Iran strike dirty work, comes this preview of a CBS News 60 Minutes interview this Sunday by Lesley Stahl of Israel’s former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan. Dotting my ‘I’ is this:

    “…When Stahl suggests he seems to want to wait and have the U.S. attack Iranian nuclear sites, Dagan replies, “If I prefer that someone will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it,” he says.”

  12. MadDog says:

    @MadDog: For those who haven’t quite realized this yet, there has been a profound sea change in US foreign policy towards Iran. See if you can figure out what it is from this statement of President Obama in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published Friday last week:

    “…GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, ‘All options on the table.’ You’ve probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don’t entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that’s been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you’re going to give them?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran’s military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

    I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say…”

    For those who haven’t yet figured out what that profound sea change in US foreign policy towards Iran is, let me be direct and unequivocal:

    For the very first time, the US has explicitly stated (and threatened) that as official, formal US policy, it will use military force to prevent another country from obtaining nuclear weapons!

    Never before has this been so!

    It wasn’t the case with the former Soviet Union in its pursuit of nuclear weaponry. It wasn’t the case with China. Nor India. Nor Pakistan. Nor South Africa.

    Never before! Not once, not ever!

    Think about that!

    President Carter never made that an official US foreign policy threat against another country. Neither did President Reagan, nor President G.H.W. Bush, nor President Clinton and not even President G.W. Bush.

    Think about that!

    Many of our US foreign policy Illuminati would claim that the US would, and even did, come to that US foreign policy towards Iran independently and on our own, but that is at best wishful thinking, and at worst, deceitful revisionism.

    The simple factual truth of the matter is that a long, deliberate campaign to effect and change US foreign policy regarding Iran and its nuclear program has been underway for years by Israel. Some would call it “educating” the US; others would call it “manipulation”.

    Whichever position one may hold on that, the factual basis for it on the ground cannot be denied. Take a gander at these 2 recent McClatchy articles where those facts are explicitly admitted:

    Israel push on Iran included a steady dose of media leaks

    After years, uncertainty still colors talk of Iran’s nuclear capability

    In both McClatchy articles, no effort is made to deny the Israeli efforts to affect US foreign policy to Iran and its nuclear program. In fact, the Israelis quoted seemed downright proud and pleased with themselves for their accomplishment.

    The central question of my commentary here is whether we and our interests are best being served here? Or is it the case that the primary interests being served here are those of another country?

    As I indicated in my previous comment, it seems that the game is to make certain that the blood and treasure expended on a military strike against Iran is the blood and treasure of the US.

    If you come away from my commentary here with both concern and even fear for what has and is taking place with regard to US foreign policy towards Iran, then I consider the time I spent writing this as worth the effort.

  13. joanneleon says:

    You would think that the guy who is in charge of federal law enforcement for all of the U.S. would be able to answer that simple yes or no question. After all, he has to know what to do every day to enforce the law, right?

    You would think that the guy who spent weeks on end arguing about the clauses in that NDAA bill because of his concerns about jurisdiction would be able to answer that simple yes or no question.

    If the answer to that question had been a clear “no” I think he would have answered that question.

    Why, after all this time, are people still arguing about the answer to that question? We know the answer is yes. But not one of our officials will say that, will they?

    If the answer to that question was “no” why would Congress be writing a law about it? Why did Feinstein write amendments and laws about it? Why did the president write signing statements and directives to restrict himself?

  14. Jim White says:

    @MadDog: And yet, Iran was happy with Obama’s attempts to bring Netanyahu to heel recently. WaPo:

    In a rare positive remark about the United States, Iran’s supreme leader lauded President Obama on Thursday for saying that he was trying to avert war with the Islamic republic.

    “Two days ago, we heard the president of America say: ‘We are not thinking of war with Iran.’ This is good. Very good. These are wise words. This is an exit from illusion,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state television.

  16. DonS says:

    Been looking just a little around the net. Not too many dem (read Obot) sites are posting much about this. Where they are, from my small sample, their little Obot heads are exploding, especially in comments. Apparently the Constitution is just not a big item for these Democrats.

  17. MadDog says:

    @Jim White: Everybody hears what they want to hear.

    As I’ve thought about the chances of success with new P-5 plus 1 talks with Iran, I can’t seem to find much evidence that any of the P-5 plus 1 participants expect anything but delay. The attitude and positions of the Western members of the P-5 plus 1 seem to preclude any real chance of a climbdown.

    After stating US foreign policy is that the US won’t allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, any lack of climbdown between Iran and the P-5 plus 1, lends itself to further boxing in Obama and the US, and leads us further down the path where the US military option becomes the only remaining option.

  19. orionATL says:

    this is our amoral, irresponsible, power-craving, marbles-playing president at his “best” (acting thru his satraps) once again.

    does obama understand so little history that he does not realize that 50 or 100 years from now another would-be tyrant can use the administration’s and the congress’s words against opponents?

    what is the point of creating the circumstances in which such a discussion as this could and would proceed?

    well, of course, there is the issue of american congressmen and american citizens failing to attend to and to accept responsibility for what the congress enacts and for the subsequent authoritarianism develops in our country.

    thinking and acting this way might be described as a form of nation parenting.

    hmmm.

  20. MadDog says:

    @MadDog: I would note some weasel-wording qualification by Jay Carney in his Press Briefing today on the subject of whether the US offered Israel its advanced bunker-buster bombs and refueling planes if the Israel would hold off attacking Iran until 2013 after the US Presidential election. See if you can identify the weasel-wording qualification:

    “…Norah.

    Q There are — there’s a report in an Israeli newspaper that the Israelis asked the U.S. to provide them advanced bunker-buster bombs and refueling planes. Was that a request made by the Israelis?

    MR. CARNEY: In the meetings the President had there was no such agreement proposed or reached. We have obviously, as we’ve discussed, high-level cooperation between the Israeli military and the U.S. military and at other levels in — with other agencies within their government and our government. But that was not a subject of discussion in the President’s meetings.

    Q There was no request by the Israelis for this advanced military equipment?

    MR. CARNEY: Correct. And in terms of the President’s meetings, that’s my understanding.

    Q So there is — and so there is no —

    MR. CARNEY: So it’s possible that there is a report out there in a news outlet that might not be accurate.

    Q So the U.S. is not providing its Massive Ordnance Penetrator to the Israelis?

    MR. CARNEY: I am simply saying that it is my understanding that there was no such agreement discussed or reached in the meetings the President had. We have a lot of cooperation with the Israeli military. We have provided materiel to the Israeli military in the past, and I’m sure we will continue to do that as part of our cooperation with and partnership with the Israeli military. But —

    Q I believe the President himself has said there’s never been closer military-to-military ties or intelligence ties between the U.S. and Israel.

    MR. CARNEY: Yes, he has.

    Q And Israel has expressed publicly that they are concerned about the window closing, certainly given their technology. Why not provide them that technology?

    MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don’t have anything more to tell you about that except what I did, which is it was not discussed — not — no such agreement was discussed or reached in the meetings the President had…”

    Found it? No? Let me help you.

    Jay Carney weasel-worded qualified what he said about the US providing advanced bunker-buster bombs and refueling planes to Israel by stating “no such agreement was discussed or reached in the meetings the President had”.

    Get that? Meetings the President had! Might there have been other meetings between Israeli and US officials where such a US proposal was made? You betcha!

    Seems like there are a few folks in the Obama Administration that see the box Bibi is trying to stick the US in (i.e. get the big dummy to expend his own blood and treasure to strike Iran rather than the Israelis), and are responding by saying to the Israelis that if the Israelis think their window of opportunity to strike Iran’s nuclear program facilities is fast closing because, golly, they don’t have the latest and greatest US bunker-busters and gosh darn it, they just don’t have the air-to-air refueling capacity, well then Israel, we’ll give you all those goodies so you can do the Iran strike dirty work rather than US.

    Since I’m of the firm opinion that the Israelis don’t want to do the Iran strike dirty work themselves, but explicitly want to manipulate the US into doing it, I’m guessing that the supposed US offer, and now its apparent denial means that the Israelis “blinked” and somehow declined.

    Bluff and counter-bluff. The game continues.

  21. MadDog says:

    @MadDog: I should have finished reading Jay Carney’s Press Briefing, because his weasel-wording qualification became even more obvious within moments:

    “…Ed.

    Q Jay, I want to follow up on Norah because you seemed to be very specific in saying, on the bunker-busting bombs, they were not discussed in the President’s meetings. Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Panetta —

    MR. CARNEY: Well, I have no information regarding —

    Q Other officials maybe talked to —

    MR. CARNEY: I mean, I would refer you to other officials. This was not a discussion — no agreements of that kind were reached. I don’t — nothing was —

    Q Nothing was discussed —

    MR. CARNEY: — in the President’s meetings, yes. I mean, that’s who I speak for here, so –…

    [snip]

    …Chuck.

    Q A couple of — it’s fair to say your denial is being very specific on this report about the bunker, right?

    MR. CARNEY: Well, I just don’t have any —

    Q It’s simply about the President and —

    MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m just saying that I’m the President’s Press Secretary. The President had a lot of meetings with the Prime Minister of Israel that included first — it was first a one-on-one, and then a broader staff, including other senior officials from his administration. And that’s what I know about the meetings the President had…”

    Ye olde non-denial denial.

  22. MadDog says:

    Tangentially related to EW’s post, this from Charlie Savage of NYT tonight:

    “A Not-Quite Confirmation of a Memo Approving Killing

    For months, the Obama administration has refused to confirm or deny the existence of a Justice Department memorandum that approved the targeted killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a drone strike in Yemen last September.

    But in an exchange at a budget hearing on Thursday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. came close to implicitly conceding that there is indeed such a memo, which was written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    Mr. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, brought up a conversation he said he and Mr. Holder had earlier this week about a speech on “drones and targeting of U.S. citizens” that the attorney general delivered on Monday.

    “I still want to see the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum and I would urge you to keep working on that,” Mr. Leahy said to Mr. Holder. “I realize that’s a matter of some debate within the administration but …”

    The senator then paused, smiled and laughed. Mr. Holder responded by nodding and said, chuckling, “That would be true.”…

    Does anyone believe there isn’t an OLC memo on killing Anwar al-Awlaki? If I wanted to define the word “silly”, this would do nicely.

  23. prostratedragon says:

    @MadDog:

    digby‘ll tell you just how silly:

    And nothing bad happened to John Yoo, so why should they care?

    Meanwhile, Horton at No Comment was reminded by the hair-missing tendentiousness of one of the “arguments” in Holder’s speech of a certain Robert Duvall movie. Duvall’s character there is used rather like a human drone in the main plot action, as it happens, but the deftness of footwork and forthrightness of intention on display both there and in the movie’s dancehall scenes way outclasses anything in Holder’s hack attack.

    By way of illustration antidote to all of this, “Origins of Villa Urquiza Style — Finito II,” the best and wittiest tango dance scene I know of, from the 1988 version of Tango Bar.

  25. MadDog says:

    OT – More from the AP on the CIA on the Hudson/NYPD Spying on all Muslims story:

    “NYPD docs: ‘Focus’ scrutiny on Muslim Americans

    The New York Police Department kept secret files on businesses owned by second- and third-generation Americans specifically because they were Muslims, according to newly obtained documents that spell out in the clearest terms yet that police were monitoring people based on religion…”

  26. P J Evans says:

    @MadDog:
    Do they also keep files on businesses owned by second- and third-generation Chinese and Japanese immigrants? (And Cuban immigrants, too, although there probably aren’t many third-generation immigrants in that group with businesses.)

  28. klynn says:

    @MadDog:

    “I did not have sex with that woman.”

    weasel wording…

    BTW, I am pretty ticked at the threat to USA sovereignty with the following words:

    For them, you’re the Great Satan, we’re the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you’re us. And you know something, Mr. President — at least on this last point, I think they’re right. We are you, and you are us. We’re together. So if there’s one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it’s that Israel and America stand together.

    I think that above and beyond that are two principles, longstanding principles of American policy that you reiterated yesterday in your speech — that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself by itself against any threat; and that when it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right to make its own decisions. I believe that’s why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself.

    And after all, that’s the very purpose of the Jewish state — to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. And that’s why my supreme responsibility as Prime Minister is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.

    – Prime Minister Netanyahu

    As for the content of the post:

    Nothing like having a policy which will create a controlling fear and wealth of power to suppress the masses. In fact it made me think of this interview of Masha Gessen I listened to yesterday. This stood out:

    Ryssdal: You know, the straight-ahead question is to ask what the Russian people want out of Vladimir Putin. But let me turn it on its head a little bit and ask it this way: What does Putin want out of Russia?

    Gessen: I think he rules very much by instinct. He doesn’t have a long-range plan. He thinks that the Soviet Union was the greatest country ever. And the great thing that it produced was the KGB. And he’s really done everything he can to make Russia institutionally resemble the KGB. It’s a closed system, a very paranoid system, a system that thrives on fear, and a corrupt system. And that’s what he’s recreated in Russia.

    Go read the whole interview. It sounds like our future.

  30. Bob Schacht says:

    [Written last night, posted this morning}:

    @MadDog: MadDog,
    Thanks for highlighting this for us.

    Back when I was young, I was a fan of the romance of Israel, from the depictions of Leon Uris to James Michener. Since then, Israel has become a more draconian state (or perhaps it had become a draconian state earlier, but I was too deluded to understand), particularly in its treatment of Palestinians. The parallels I now see between the Israeli partitions of Palestinian territory, and the reduction of American Indians to Reservations in the United States is now painfully clear. The asymmetry in the conditions for peace is stunning (e.g., Israel demands security, but no security is ever offered to the Palestinians.)

    Jimmy Carter was right to call the situation in Israel/Palestine “Apartheid.”

    Bob in AZ

  31. klynn says:

    @Jim White:

    Baahhhhaaaa!
    Or rather, “…goo goo g’joob g’goo goo g’joob.
    Goo goo g’joob g’goo goo g’joob g’goo.”

    (When I heard the speech live, my son broke into the chorus of
    I Am the Walrus!)

    In fact we wondered if it was a way to reference The Walrus and The Carpenter or Alice Through The Looking Glass due to his special forces background and constant need to deliver the “hidden” message.

    If he was (and I think it’s a good chance) then he was condemning the Islamic tradition (if going with the meaning of The Walrus and The Carpenter) or Through The Looking Glass which gives me a bigger more disturbing interpretation…a statement of inevitability. Or a reference to both…even more to be concerned about from my perspective.

  32. greengiant says:

    Ahhhhh Mueller, could have cut to the chase and revealed that the star chamber is alive and well in the U.S. and that the constitution is to be ignored or end runned at any whim.
    Whether you are the first American to be killed by drone in the US as an enemy combatant, ( if a drone kills you then you are an enemy combatant by definition ), or if you are the umpteenth state to be attacked by a US executive without a declaration of war from Congress the methods are the same.

Comments are closed.