Eric Holder: “We can kill you whenever we want to.”

We confess to a gross distortion. Those are not Attorney General Eric Holder’s exact words. But we vigorously insist that they were his meaning.

In the wake of the the president’s murder-by-drone of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, the Attorney general explains why U.S. citizenship can be no guarantee of the usual due process that U.S. citizens have come to expect before their government imprisons or obliterates them. In a speech at Northwestern University Law School, Holder said:

“Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

“The evaluation of whether an individual presents an ‘imminent threat’ 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.”

“Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. 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.”

“Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law. The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.”

Surely this is only a concern for brown extremists in deserts…isn’t it…?

Gary Gibson