Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

March 12, 2012

Holder v. New York Times on Due Process

Filed under: Legal Issues,Radicalization,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on March 12, 2012

Last week HLSWatch reprinted Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech at Northwestern University’s School of Law.  In those remarks the Attorney General noted:

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.   “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.   The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

The lead editorial in yesterday’s (Sunday’s) New York Times maintains that judicial review is essential to the executive’s purposeful use of lethal force against a citizen.

Mr. Holder argued in his speech that judicial process and due process guaranteed by the Constitution “are not one and the same.” This is a straw man. The judiciary has the power to say what the Constitution means and make sure the elected branches apply it properly. The executive acting in secret as the police, prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner is the antithesis of due process.

The administration should seek a court’s approval before killing an American citizen, except in the sort of “hot pursuit” that justifies the police shooting of an ordinary suspect…

The complete editorial is available at: The Power to Kill.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

1 Comment »

Comment by William R. Cumming

March 12, 2012 @ 11:47 am

Well I posted a comment on the Editorial but not a NY Times pick so not available.

But the evolution of the PRESIDENCY is very startling and one interesting view is expressed by Gary Wills in “BOMB POWER”!

We are a Republic not a direct democracy but what has happened is such a large part of the operation and policies of the Federal Government are now classified or otherwise not available even to the Congress. Senator Daniel Patrick Monyihan’s book “SECRECY” seems to have been prescient in many ways.

I have recently also posted comments on various blogs and the NYTimes op-eds and editorials that President Obama who has issues involving the nuclear arsenal under review [I predict a great deal of contention over that subject before the fall election] and I continue to advocate repudiation of the current MAD strategic doctrine and adoption of a NO FIRST USE policy with respect to these weapons.

One of my major problems with President Clinton was his thoughtless and risk taking over nuclear order authentication issues [his failure to understand them is clearly documented] and his failure to understand the complexity of the role of the modern President except as a path to personal fortune–meaning win at all costs.

And note for the record that the CIA is not repeat is not in the military chain of command from the President’s commander-in-chief role. How drone targets are picked, what is the evidence, and who gives the orders all unaddressed by AG HOLDER and others.

These issues are far more important than Presidential semen stains on a dress.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>