Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

“I have signed this bill,” President Barack Obama said months ago about the National Defense Authorization Act, “despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Those provisions include the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.The Fifth Amendment

Former President George W. Bush had tried that with Jose Padilla; now, courtesy of President Obama’s signature, the policy is codified into law.

“Let me be clear,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a university audience yesterday, “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 . . .”

Holder goes on to say that “a thorough and careful review” by the government would be required, and that capture must not be “feasible,” and that the hit be “conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

But something is missing. There’s absolutely no check on this awesome power. No due process. No day in court to contest the government’s “thorough and careful review” and avoid an unjustified death by bullet or drone strike.

Moreover, these extraordinary powers, which obliterate all basic legal protections going back to 1215 AD, are for the execution of an undeclared war against a concept, “terrorism,” vague enough to provide a state of permanent war.

Asked about Holder’s position, presidential candidate Ron Paul warned, “If the American people accept that, it’d be a serious mistake.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. 2WarAbnVet says:

    I really hate to agree with Holder on any matter since he has proven to be absolutely corrupt, but (and it’s a big but)if an American citizen breaks into your house to kill you then you should take all necessary actions to protect yourself without consideration for due process. If that American citizen, in concert with like-minded hoodlums, is trying to kill you from afar, the same conditions seem reasonable.

  2. Paul K says:

    While I am all in favor of killing terrorists I am very disturbed about the lack of due process when there is no emergency. With respect to the analogy of a home invader, if you get a call saying they are on the way or see some suspicious characters lurking around you should call the police.

    Holding someone without charge or trial is alien to Western civilization going back to German Salic Law. Even the Nazis and Soviets “charged” someone and gave them a “trial”. For example, some of the July 20 conspirators were even acquitted of trying to kill Hitler.

    Despite the bad precedent, I’m not losing any sleep over the guy they killed in Somalia. However, using the same standards in the US is profoundly disturbing.

  3. Drik says:

    Waterboarding foreigners is criminal.
    Killing Americans without trial and without a declaration of war is not.
    We didn’t give him that power. He just took it.
    Due process has become do you process, as in, “if he doesn’t like you, he’s going to do you”.

  4. Brian Wright says:

    So much of the justification for abandoning Constitutional protections is based on the argument of terrorism. What if terrorism itself is a false-flag act of state terror… as many scholars and liberty activists have now demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt? Ref. Jim Marr’s book, The Terror Conspiracy ( and many others.

    Regardless, Constitutional protections of life and liberty and due process are even more important to retain in times of stress. The fact is, extrajudicial killings and the recent NDAA (reiteration of) specification of IDWOT (indefinite detention without trial)––are simply the latest steps of a Government Gone Wild, ‘evincing a design to reduce us under absolute despotism’–

    They will not stand!

  5. Doug Watts says:

    Our government is getting more dangerous every day, and few examples demonstrate this better than ‘Liberal’ Obama administration’s Eric Holder rationalizing murder, without due process, against American citizens. The same man excoriates the Bush administration for water boarding, but targeting a citizen for murder without due process is ‘OK’. At least, it can’t be said bi-partisanship is not alive in Washington. I’m sure Santorum, Gingrich and Romney would agree with Holder. Please, where is the outrage. Ron Paul is the only person running for President who has a clear-headed sense of who we are, and unfortunately wher we are going.

  6. Jay says:

    And –like 2 War- quoted above-I dilike Holder–here he is right.

    Ron Paul, in the debate sponsored by the American Heritage Foundation- in response to a statement by Newt Gingrich that if he knew (as president) of a 911 type attack, he would take pre-emptive emasures- (kill the abstards). Paul disagreed- saying that eh would not.

    So, sacrifice a few thousand people for “principals”.

    That is insane.


  7. Pat says:

    Holder is not my favorite AG, but I’m not totally opposed to what he says is allowed.
    The distinction he drew between ‘due process’ and ‘judicial process’ makes my skin crawl, but what do we do when we are at war?
    People on C-SPAN made what I consider a false comparison: that we arrested McVeigh and the blind sheikh (and all the others who planned and carried out the first WTC attack). They were ALL in the US and subject to our laws. When someone like al-Awlaki declares war on the US, are we really supposed to go before a judge for an arrest warrant? Most of those who were ‘assassinated’ by this administration had publicly declared war on this country. Why aren’t we allowed to treat them as enemy combatants?

  8. Jay says:


    I agree with you comletely.

    It is the Ron Paul people (in my opinion) who hold the contrary view.

    (See my earlier comment- re Paul at the Heritage Foundation debate- where he criticized Gingrich- for saying that, if he (Gingrich) were President, and knew of a 911 type attack, would kill the perps. Paul objected.

    In a prior column, one person, defending Santorum, defended compromises to get things done.

    One person came back- cannot compromise on the Constitution.

    I guess he read different history boosk then i did, as i recall ( many years ago, before PC books) that most parts of the Constution were as a result of compromises. (I inquired if he beleived women shoudl nto have the right to vote and we should still have slavery- both parts of the Constution).

    I think the civil libertarians LACK RUDIMENTARY COMMON SENSE.

    Like, protect the people– not the terrorists.

Leave a Reply to Brian Wright Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2020 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top