AG Sort of Explains When and Why the President Could Drop a Bomb on You

[Eugen Leitl]

(you keep using that word. it doesn't mean what you think it means.
also, furriners are never out of season, apparently)

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/03/ag-sort-of-explains-when-and-why-the-president-could-drop-a-bomb-on-you.html

AG Sort of Explains When and Why the President Could Drop a Bomb on You

In case you missed it, the Attorney General of the United States spent a
little time yesterday discussing the circumstances under which the President
could order your death without having a trial or even having charged you with
any crime.

I just wrote that sentence myself, and I still keep re-reading it, thinking
"that can't be true."

I wrote this up in more detail yesterday over at Forbes, where as you may
have noticed I tend to post (or initially post) things masquerading as more
serious items. "Attorney General Explains Why It's Okay to Kill U.S. Citizens
Without a Trial," Forbes.com (Mar. 5, 2012); see also "You Say 'Indefinite
Military Detention of Citizens Like It's a Bad Thing," Forbes.com (Dec. 7,
2011). I do think there are some decent lines in yesterday's post, although
maybe not as good as Jonathan Turley's crack about the same speech: "The good
news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport."

I think that's a pretty good summary. The lowlights of the speech, I think,
were Holder's promise that no citizen would be blown up unless the government
had determined (among other things) "that the individual poses an imminent
threat of violent attack against the United States," and his somewhat unusual
definition of "due process."

First, it turns out that "imminent" doesn't mean what you think it means (or
what the dictionary thinks it means). Rather, the concept "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." If you see
anything in there that has to do with being "imminent," please let me know.
The "future" is a big place, and just because something might be in it does
not make that thing "imminent." Major Kong rides the bomb in Dr. Strangelove
Not quite on point, but a great picture anyway

Second, Holder did promise that nobody would be killed without "due process."
Comforting! But no! Because this also doesn't mean what you think it means.
"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same," Holder said,
"particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees
due process, not judicial process." Oh. So what process are we due? Executive
process. But have no fear, you won't be put on a death list without a
"thorough and careful review" of the (secret) evidence against you by the
Executive Branch, Holder basically promised. So there's really no need to get
those other branches involved. Let's just keep this between us.

Again, more details in the Forbes post, here.