"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."
Eric "Himmler" Holder, Attorney General of the United States of Amerika.
The above quote was Gestapomeister Holder's response to questions about whether or not the Obama regime felt that it could target Americans for assassination within U.S. borders.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/#ixzz1oeGKOfOg
This story was covered by other blogs such as Zero Hedge and Mike Vanderboegh, but I did not see mention of this quote, which should scare the pants off of anyone with even passing knowledge of the Constitution and the concept of Due Process of Law.
Holder's statement is a very broad statement that exceeds the context in which it was given. He states that there is a right to due process, but not to judicial process. Think about this for a moment. What is due process and how does a citizen obtain it?
The simple answer is that judicial process is an inseparable part of due process. Without judicial process, the review of government action by the judiciary, due process is only the two words, a hollow shell of the idea that a person's rights under the Constitution are respected and enforced. Without judicial process, due process is whatever the executive branch says it is, without the mechanism of judicial oversight and review guaranteed by the Constitution. Due process would simply be a label plastered over the regimes practices, used to justify its actions, in this case the action being the sentencing to death of a citizen without judicial process.
How is judicial process essential to due process? Judicial process is the real time application of due process, the proceedings which form the check and balance on the power of the state. It is the court procedure and case law interpretation of statutory law which, for example, examines whether the state has reasonable suspicion of a crime committed, probable cause to believe that a person committed the crime, whether the state violated the person's rights such as to remain silent, to ensure that proceedings are fair and that the accused has legal counsel, to apply the legal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to ensure that the punishment is not cruel or unusual.
Holder's statement, taken at face value, declares that none of the judicial process in the preceding paragraph is required.
Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that persons accused of misdemeanor traffic violations have the right to counsel where imprisonment was a possible penalty under the statute, even if it were unlikely that a defendant were to be sentenced to a day of jail time.
We have gone so far down the road to tyranny that, in a country that once upheld the right to a defense attorney for a misdemeanor traffic violation, there is no outrage when the nation's lead attorney declares that there is no right to judcial process (much less a defense attorney) when the government decides that a citizen's life is to be extinguished.
Holder is not only an embarrassment to the legal profession, but is a domestic enemy to the American people. FBI Director Robert Mueller, himself an attorney and former U.S. Attorney, is a co-conspirator to Holder's crimes against the American people. I only hope that the next administration prosecutes Holder and Mueller to the fullest extent of the law, but I will not be holding my breath in anticipation.
Sometimes I don't recognize this country that I was born and raised in.
Silver Takes the Elevator Down, Report 30 April, 2017
37 minutes ago