Attorneys General, Eric Holder: is okay to target US Citizens or anyone else for Assassination

Eric Holder: Targeted killings legal, constitutional
By JOSH GERSTEIN – 5 March, 2012 – Politico

CHICAGO — Attorney General Eric Holder Monday presented the Obama administration’s most detailed justification for armed drone strikes against Al Qaeda leaders, arguing that the U.S. government doesn’t legally need judicial review to kill terrorist operatives overseas — even when they’re Americans.

“It’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans,” Holder said in a speech delivered at Northwestern University School of Law.

Questions about the legal basis for lethal U.S. drone operations have swirled for years, particularly as the Obama administration stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan. However, the queries and criticism became more intense after reports in 2010 that a New Mexico-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki — killed in a Sept. 2011 drone strike — was on a list of terror suspects that the U.S. had decided to target using deadly force.

Holder is the highest ranking administration official yet to defend the administration’s position, arguing that placing terror suspects on a so-called kill list is subject to “robust oversight,” but should not and need not involve the courts.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate,” Holder said. “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process.”

Holder’s half-hour speech came in the wake of months of internal administration debate about how to respond to calls for the release of a still-secret Justice Department legal opinion justifying the use of deadly force against al-Awlaki. The address appeared to reflect a decision to shed some more light on the legal standards the administration applies in such cases, but stopped short of the transparency demanded by many critics and even some supporters of the policy.
…more