The Murder of Americans: Existence of Secret Kill Lists Now Admitted by Lawless White House

October 11th 2011

You know things are bad in the realm of tyranny when even Reuters runs a story that admits the White House openly engages in the outright murder of U.S. citizens whom the White House deems "enemies." In an article entitled, Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list", Reuters reported: "American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...) If that sounds like a report you'd usually read on Natural News or InfoWars.com, that's because we're usually the first to report on true conspiracies that exist in the corrupt, criminal government running rampant across America today. But this particular assassination conspiracy was so outrageous -- and so illegal -- that even Reuters had to cover it (to their credit, by the way). The existence of this secret "kill list" means the U.S. government can now decide, completely outside of law, to brazenly murder any person it wishes. And this is all apparently A-OK with President Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner! I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee will consider revoking its peace prize from a recipient who now operates as part of a secret "kill list" murder squad. If not, then we ought to just rename the whole thing the Nobel Murder Prize, huh?

Orwell said it best: War is peace! Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength... ABC News even went to bat on this issue
Reuters wasn't alone, by the way, in questioning the White House justification for this murder. ABC News Reporter Jake Tapper also had some hard-hitting questions for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the legal justification (ha!) for this killing of an American-born man. 1

Watch the jaw-dropping exchange between Jake Tapper and Jay Carney in the following video link. This will give you a deep (and disturbing) understanding of the astonishing lawlessness that has taken hold in America, where the term due process means absolutely nothing and the President's men can now simply order the murder of anyone he wants, for any reason, without presenting even a shred of evidence to support such actions: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8... The full transcript of this exchange is found below.

The quagmire of murderous government

How many laws and rights has President Obama violated in this executive murder of an American citizen? Let's see: There are federal laws against murder. There are two amendments in the Bill of Rights that protect due process. There is an executive order on the books banning assassinations. Plus, there's is God's law (or natural law) under which the unjustified murder of another human being is a severe violation. But the Obama administration says murder is right only as long as the U.S. government does it. This is equivalent to arguing that the King's word is law because the King says it is, which implies that the King is gifted some supernatural authority which the People themselves do not possess. And that stands in complete violation of the very founding principles of our nation which exists on the commonsense premise that All Men Are Created Equal -- i.e. there is no "King" among us whose actions or intentions are immune from the scrutiny of law. Don't misunderstand me in all this: I'm not saying the target of all this -- Anwar al-Awlaki -- is innocent. But the point is that we don't really KNOW who is innocent or guilty until evidence is presented and a person has their day in court. One of the most fundamental principles of Common Law is that those accused of crimes may face their accusers and see the evidence presented against them. This is guaranteed under U.S. law as well as the Bill of Rights. Yet President Obama who has also seen fit to continue Bush's torture regime at Gitmo apparently believes all those laws and rights do not apply to the government itself. The King again, remember? Friends, this is the very definition of tyranny. You are staring it in the face. Secret kill lists? Really? Why not just roll in the Stasi secret police or Nazi SS? This is how it starts: First the killing is "only" for real enemies. And then it's for political enemies. Then it's for journalists, entrepreneurs and academics... until you end up with a total police state tyranny where the government itself is held back by nothing other than the whims and fetishes of its own tyrants who operate under the delusion that they are granted power over the common people by God himself. This is what all kings and tyrants throughout world history have believed, by the way. Jake Tapper from ABC News stood up to Carney over all this. That's why he asked these pointed questions which Jay Carney flippantly dismissed, almost as if to say, "How dare the slaves ask their King to explain his actions!"

We are about to lose the Republic to total tyranny

That's where things are in America today: Your rights have been overrun. The laws that were once meticulously constructed to place limits on the government itself have been utterly abandoned by that government even as the complacent People watched and did nothing for far too long. Tyrants in the government today now run surveillance on raw milk distribution centers (http://www.naturalnews.com/033822_K...), threaten home gardeners with prison time (http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_J...) and bring guns to the front steps of innocent moms to force their children to take psychiatric medications (http://www.naturalnews.com/032091_M...). Government now murders Americans using secret kill lists, and then does not even feel it has any obligation whatsoever to present any evidence at all supporting its actions! If there are no limits on this government power, and the government itself willfully violates the law at every opportunity, then where do you suppose this is all headed? It can only end with the total concentration of power into the hands of tyrants. If you disagree with that, I ask you: What will stop that from happening? Huh? What will stop it? The zombies in Atlanta sure won't stop it. They're too engaged in their hypnotic collectivist chant to think for themselves (http://www.naturalnews.com/033830_O...). The Democrats and Republicans sure won't stop it. They all worship Big Government, after all, because that's from where they both draw their power. And the executive branch of the government itself won't stop it -- they're the ones who gain power from all this tyranny! There is no one who can stop this other that We the People, People who take to the streets and resist tyranny, speak out against criminality in the government, and nip at the heels of tyrants at every opportunity. Run the tyrants out of town, I say. Demand the restoration of our Republic, which means that ALL MEN (and woman) must abide by the same laws and recognize the same rights of others. There are no exceptions to these rules. Those who violate them are operating outside the law and are therefore criminals who should be arrested and prosecuted. Mark my words, friends: If we allow our own government to run a secret kill list targeting "guilty" Americans, then it won't be long before we find ourselves on it. There are times in history when the criminality of the government is so outrageous, and so inexcusable, that it is not merely the right but the duty of the People to intervene and restore the rule of law upon those who falsely believe they are above it.

Transcript of exchange between Jake Tapper and Jay Carney

See the video at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8... TAPPER: You said that Awlaki was demonstrably and provably involved in operations. Do you plan on demonstrating -MR. CARNEY: I should step back. He is clearly -- I mean "provably" may be a legal term. I think 3

it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration and the previous administration that he is a leader in was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was a definite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, did not succeed, but were extremely serious including the ones specifically that I mentioned, in terms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the United States. And he was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists. So I don't think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions. TAPPER: You don't think anybody else in the government would dispute that? MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldnt know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens. TAPPER: Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges? MR. CARNEY: Again, the question makes us has embedded within it assumptions about the circumstances of his death that Im just not going to address. TAPPER: How on earth does it have I really don't understand. How does hes dead. You are asserting that he had operational control of the cargo plot and the Abdulmutallab plot. Hes now dead. Can you tell us, or the American people r has a judge been shown... MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Jake, Im not going to go any further than what Ive said about the circumstances of his death and TAPPER: I don't even understand how they're tied. MR. CARNEY: -- the case against him, which, again, youre linking. And I think that... TAPPER: You said that he was responsible for these things. MR. CARNEY: Yes, but again TAPPER: Is there going to be any evidence presented? MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that. TAPPER: Do you not see at all does the administration not see at all how a President asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that hes not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people? MR. CARNEY: I wasnt aware of any of those things that you said actually happening. And again, Im not going to address the circumstances of Awlakis death. I think, again, it is an important fact that this terrorist, who was actively plotting had plotted in the past, and was actively plotting to attack Americans and American interests, is dead. But Im not going to from any angle discuss the circumstances of his death.

TAPPER: Do you know that the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU tried to get permission to represent Awlaki? And his father had asked them to do that. But they needed to get permission from the Treasury Department so that they could challenge his being on this targeted killing list. And the administration, the Obama administration refused to let them represent him, to not even he couldn't even have the ACLU representing him. MR. CARNEY: Well, I would send those questions, or take those questions to Treasury or Justice. I don't have anything on that for you. TAPPER: What do you think constitutional law professor Barack Obama would make of this? MR. CARNEY: I think he spoke about it today.

Dictatorship: Obama subverts constitutional due process, openly murders innocent American citizen
Probable cause, due process, trial by jury these are just a few of the many relics of the former constitutional republic that used to exist in the United States of America. And the recent Obama-prompted murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen suspected of "inspiring" terrorist attacks, but who was never actually tried by a jury or officially ruled to have committed any crime whatsoever, proves just how far down the path of tyranny that the supposed "land of the free" has descended. According to the official government story, al-Awlaki was a key player in helping to plan and organize various al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, including the infamous World Trade Center attack on 9/11, and the failed Christmas Day underwear bomber attack in 2009. The imam, who allegedly preached many anti-American sermons to his followers when he was still alive, was also involved in being a "spiritual advisor" to alleged jihadists. But as serious as all this activity truly is, al-Awlaki was still an American citizen, which means he is entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American citizen. This includes the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, for instance, which guarantees every American citizen protection against government abuse of authority in a legal procedure, and the right to due process of law, neither of which al-Awlaki received. Instead of taking al-Awlaki to trial and prosecuting him the proper way, the Obama-led US government arbitrarily sent the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) last Friday to perform an air strike on al-Awlaki, who had been living in Yemen. The end result was the death of both alAwlaki and Samir Khan, another man connected to al-Awlaki that CBS News says was "not targeted directly." Again, regardless of what al-Awlaki was suspected of doing, he was never tried in a court, and he was never declared by a jury to have committed any crime. The US government simply decided to murder him in cold blood, and has since refused to share any evidence with the public as to why such an action was necessary or legitimate.

White House admits that al-Awlaki's murder cannot be legally justified

At a recent press conference, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper grilled White House press secretary Jay Carney on the al-Awlaki issue, repeatedly asking him to offer at least some evidence proving that al-Awlaki was at all involved, as the government claims, in aiding terrorism, or some kind of legal justification for the man's murder. Not only did a nervous Carney refuse to answer the question, but he even admitted that the government cannot actually prove anything at all about al-Awlaki. Instead, Carney alleges that "the position" of both the Obama administration and previous Bush administration that alAwlaki is guilty is enough to warrant his death. You can watch the shocking, four-minute clip of the discourse here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bg... Never mind all that business about gathering evidence, presenting it before a court of law, and determining without a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty. As long as government officials hold the position that someone is guilty, then they automatically are in the New America. Also, be sure to check out the video Should President Obama Go To Trial For Murder? Here: http://runronpaul.com/activism/shou...

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar alAwlaki. But they won't release it.
Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar alAwlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar alAulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said." Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target alAwlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process." Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clear-cut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

January 18th 2013 By Vicki Divoll

We rarely agree with the New York Times, but the killing of Americans without a trial is a dangerous precedent. Even if Obama is using this unconstitutional power to kill terrorists, it must be stopped. PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill. He must think we should be relieved. The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlakis 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado. Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the presidents reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again. But a few of our representatives have spoken up sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bushs attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005. So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the presidents killing powers. That isnt happening either. Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own. In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them. Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the presidents killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the presidents interpretation of the constitutional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read. So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or dont care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and enhanced interrogation. In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the selfserving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it. While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the elections outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner rein in presidents by putting a legal architecture in place. His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them but not when they kill them. It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong. Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.s Counterterrorism Center. Related: Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld (January 3, 2013)

Obama DOJ: We Dont Need Clear Evidence To Kill Americans With Drones
February 5th 2013 By Tim Brown

The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, reads a confidential Justice Department memo defending the U.S. governments ability to order the killing of American citizens if they believe them to be senior operational leaders or an associated force, even if they dont have any evidence that the person targeted is actually engaged in or plotting an attack on the US All of the controversy stemmed from the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. The kill list was affirmed last year as then Obamas assassination czar, John Brennan, was appointed. Now that same Brennan, who was a key architect in the drone campaign, has now been appointed by Obama as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), following David Petraeus resignation.

President Obama's Rules for Assassinating U.S. Citizens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UxrvTOpHb0 The memo states that no clear evidence of a specific attack on persons and interests is needed, nor does the operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States in order to be targeted for assassination by the Federal government. This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qaeda members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful, the memo reads. It gets worse.

10

Michael Isikoff points out the following: As in Holders speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to law of war principles. But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an undue risk to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes. The undated memo is entitled Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaida or An Associated Force. It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly. Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in an interview with NBC said the document was chilling. Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and its easy to see how they could be manipulated, Jaffer said. Justin Sink recalls, In November, the New York Times reported that the White House was working to codify rules to govern the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones. The codification work was begun during last years presidential election. According to the report, the Obama administration wanted to provide Mitt Romney with a clear set of procedures and standards for the use of drone strikes were he to be elected. The president himself has spoken publicly about the need to better codify the use of drone strikes, he writes. One of the things weve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, he continued, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any presidents reined in terms of some of the decisions that were making, Obama said during an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart shortly before the election.

11

There is something in place. Its called the Constitution, something Barack Obama and members of Congress swore to support and defend. Specifically its called the Sixth Amendment that is being violated here. I realize that many people will scream about terrorists and all sorts of things, but the issue is that this administration and its thug partners are already defining those who believe that the Federal government is too big for its britches and are overstepping their bounds as domestic terrorists. Sadly, many Republicans like Representative Peter King (R-NY) who serves as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee calls Obamas kill list totally right and totally constitutional. Additionally, our public education system is beginning the indoctrination of who is and is not a terrorist. The y are doing it by teaching that those that engaged in the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. Even our own government training agents that the Founding Fathers were terrorists. In addition, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of those making the decisions to murder those who have not engaged in any acts of terrorism nor have they been proven to actually be plotting attacks on the United States. These same people within the Obama administration have supplied aid to the organization they say they are opposed to in Libya and more than likely in Syria, yet they do not target themselves, do they? No, they hide behind executive privilege and government charades. We dont see them coming clean on matters where they have put weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels that have resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Mexicans and at least two federal agents. This is not just chilling, its unlawful. Its unconstitutional. Its a mockery of our Constitution and before you say that you would never find yourself on the presidential hit list, perhaps you should consider the open talk of assassination by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he told CBS 60 Minutes, If someone is a citizen of the United States and is a terrorist (Ill note, is not proved to be a terrorist, just claimed to be one by the government) who wants to attack our people and kill Americans (again that would make a person a suspect and should be innocent until proven guilty) in my book that person is a terrorist. I point this out because Panetta openly claims that the Federal government can bypass the Constitution and just do whatever they want to American citizens. How long before they start targeting State militia groups, true patriots, those that believe in the Second Amendment (contrary to Jesse Jacksons claims), and even those opposed to the Obamacare mandate? How long before those bitter clingers of religion and guns are targeted as terrorists? Think about it.

12

Beware: A President who justifies secret drone killings of Americans can justify anything
February 5th 2013

The U.S. Justice Department has just released a 16-page memo outlining its justification for why President Obama can order drone killings of American citizens. The paper is a wild tour of bizarro-land justifications from a government that no longer abides by any Constitutional limits or even principles of human rights. As NBC News frighteningly reports: A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. White House press secretary Jay Carney, the mouthpiece of tyranny and lawlessness in America today, added that "These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise." (FreeBeacon.com) Thus, the idea that an American citizen receives a trial by jury, a defense attorney, due process of law and an ability to face his accusers is utterly thrown out the window. What this memo essentially "legalizes" is the ability of the U.S. President to simply order the murder of anyone he names. No law needs to be followed. No arguments offered. There does not even need to be a single shred of evidence that this person has violated any law whatsoever. The decision process takes place in total secrecy and is not subject to judicial review of any kind.

The President has become a dictator

There's no other way to say it: This is tyranny. A President who has the power to kill anyone he wishes, completely outside of law and the Constitution, is a dictatorial tyrant. He is a "king." This is precisely the kind of thing our Founding Fathers fought against in breaking away from the King of England. Our ancestors were fed up with secret trials, secret executions, secret court proceedings and suffering under the whims of one man whose power was completely unchecked. "If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then its truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable," writes constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. He goes on to explain: 13

The memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power willfully ignore it. This isn't even an Obama issue, by the way: it's an issue of the next President who comes to power, and the one after that. With this Justice Department memo, the office of the President is being granted permanent power to order the killing of any person added to a list. This power is wildly unconstitutional and illegal, yet if it remains unopposed, it is a power that will be retained by the office of the President and used by future Presidents. As Greenwald writes: During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open. Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. But all this isn't even the big story here. The bigger story is found in the title of this article: If the Obama administration would justify drone killings of U.S. citizens, is there anything they can't justify?

Every violation of law and the Constitution can be justified with a "legal memo"
I'm not sure where in the Constitution it says, "...unless a legal memo says otherwise." The U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights lay out immutable rules, limits and guidelines for government. But when an oppressive government regime decides to utterly ignore the Constitution and the limits of power described therein, it becomes a dictatorial tyranny. We are there now in America. Consider this: If the Obama administration can justify the drone killing of Americans, it could also justify all the following actions: The use of military troops on the streets of America (in violation of Posse Comitatus). The rounding up and internment of American citizens (into FEMA camps). The government seizure of all private retirement funds and IRAs. (This is coming soon during the coming financial collapse.) Government takeover of all farms, food, livestock and seeds. (This has already happened, actually. Click here for details.) The "disappearing" of all political enemies, journalists and critics. The arrest and imprisonment of all parents who do not vaccinate their children. 14

 Government disarmament of the population; outlawing of all guns and ammo in the hands of private citizens. Nullification of states' rights and the rollout of an armed private "White House military" that occupies the streets of America. Heck, in fact, a President who can justify drone killings of American citizens could also justify a return to slavery except this time, they'll make it white people! There's nothing the Obama administration can't justify if it's already justifying killing American citizens outside the rule of law.

The Bill of Rights was written precisely to stop this kind of tyranny
This is precisely why we need to adhere to the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment, for example, was written precisely for this age when government is desperately trying to disarm the citizens and create a monopoly of firepower in its own hands. The Fifth Amendment was written precisely for this time when government has decided it no longer needs to respect due process and can simply order the killing of anyone it wants, with no trial, no evidence presented and not even a court hearing. The Tenth Amendment was written precisely for this time when the federal government is steamrolling states' rights and attempting to rule by force everywhere across the country. Every federal agency in existence today FDA, DEA, FTC, USDA, IRS, etc. operates in blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment. (www.NullifyNow.com) If we don't stop the office of the President from now claiming it has the right to selectively murder American citizens at the stroke of a pen, then we are not a nation of law; we are a nation ruled by a tyrant king. So now, America has become a nation of drone voters who are killed by drones as ordered by a Presidential puppet controlled by the globalist bankers. Does that sound about right?

15

Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans
February 5th 2013 By Michael Isikoff

A secretive memo from the Justice Department, provided to NBC News, provides new information about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's controversial policies. Now, John Brennan, Obama's nominee for CIA director, is expected to face tough questions about drone strikes on Thursday when he appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports. A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be senior operational leaders of al-Qaida or an associated force even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administrations most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this weeks hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them consistent with the inherent right of self-defense. In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses an imminent threat of violent attack. But the confidential Justice Department white paper introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a broader concept of imminence than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland. 16

Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security. The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, the memo states. Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans Instead, it says, an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been recently involved in activities posing a threat of a violent attack and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities. The memo does not define recently or activities. As in Holders speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to law of war principles. But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an undue risk to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes. The undated memo is entitled Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaida or An Associated Force. It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly. Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News. This is a chilling document, said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and its easy to see how they could be manipulated. In particular, Jaffer said, the memo redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.

17

Tribesmen this week examine the rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where American teenager Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a similar strike two weeks earlier. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a parade of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the legal framework for such operations. Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, It is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority. Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs The completeness of the administrations public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a veritable Catch-22, said she was unable to order the release of the documents given the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret. In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens. But, she wrote, they have done so in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions. In one passage in Holders speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded without spelling out that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place. The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical endstage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear, he said.

18

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if capture is not feasible. But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation. The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper. The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas. It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations. A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination, the white paper reads. In the Departments view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.

Obama Gives Himself License to Kill

February 7th 2013 By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas even Americans claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week. This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in a veritable Catch22, because the feds have created a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret. She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis. Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? 19

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any informed, high-level official of the U.S. government. The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed high-level official, not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here. This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and Al Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlakis 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlakis American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling. Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he cant easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right. The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress. Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, hed be hardpressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

20

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the presidents careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are surgical and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders. Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?

US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets

February 10th 2013

It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie. Government officials gather in a secret courtroom, poring over documents and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killing of a suspected terrorist. If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives. But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program a secretive operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction, but isn't. The idea was bandied about during Thursday's confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is "worthy of discussion." The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for what some lawmakers see as the administration's unchecked power to kill, even if the target is an American citizen. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said as part of an effort to regulate the killing, she wants to review proposals to create something similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which reviews requests for wiretaps against suspected foreign agents for drone strikes. 21

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is pushing the idea the hardest. According to his vision, the drone court would be an avenue for U.S. officials to argue in secret before a judge why an American citizen should be targeted for death. He said it would be like "going to a court for a warrant" and proving probable cause. Except in this case, the judge would be ruling not on a search warrant or a wiretap but a missile strike from thousands of feet in the air, and thousands of miles away. "If you're planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-Executive Branch body like the FISA court in a confidential and top-secret way make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant," he said. After questioning Brennan about the drone court idea Thursday, he followed up with a letter Friday to Feinstein and the committee's top Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. He noted that the FISA court has 11 federal judges to review electronic surveillance applications, and said "such a model may be useful as we consider the debate over targeted strikes." He said an "outside judicial process" could help provide an "independent perspective" in the case of Americans who become leaders with Al Qaeda. Under the Obama administration, the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, considered a top Al Qaeda operative, became the first American successfully targeted for death under the drone program. Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son was also killed in a drone strike, in which the teen was described as collateral damage. For critics of the drone program, though, the creation of a special court may not ease their concerns. Jonathan Turley, a well-known legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, told FoxNews.com that congressional action is "clearly warranted." "President Obama has become the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be. In the face of an imperial president, it is Congress' duty under the Constitution to do whatever it can to check such an abuse of power," he said in an email. However, Turley expressed concern that a new court would "legitimate the claim of inherent authority by the president to kill citizens without charge or judicial review." "A formal process, even if accepted by the White House, could be viewed as a concession that such power exists," he said. "It would be a lethal version of FISA where constitutional provisions are set aside in favor of a largely meaningless process of review." Brennan on Thursday expressed a willingness to consider an assassination bureau, while stressing that such a court would be different from anything else in existence since the drone strikes, according to him, are only green-lighted to prevent an attack, and not to exact retribution for a prior attack.

22

"Our judicial tradition is that a court of law is used to determine one's guilt or innocence for past actions, which is very different from the decisions that are made on the battlefield, as well as actions that are taken against terrorists," he said. "Because none of those actions are to determine past guilt for those actions that they took. The decisions that are made are to take action so that we prevent a future action, so we protect American lives." He said that is an "inherently Executive Branch function to determine," and that the actions are taken only when "we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of the threat is so grave and serious, as well as imminent, that we have no recourse except to take this action that may involve a lethal strike." King said his concern is that too much power is vested in the Executive Branch when it comes to targeted killings. "I understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country," he said.

Obama plans to use military drones against American journalists, freedom activists and critics of government
February 11th 2013

President Obama plans to use military drones in the skies over the United States to assassinate journalists, patriots and critics of his administration. That's the inescapable conclusion from the emerging pattern of evidence now publicly available keep reading for details. Front and center in this pattern of evidence is the 16-page memo that was just released by Obama's lawyers in the Department of Justice. This memo puts forth a "legal justification" for the President to order the drone assassination of any American citizen he names anytime, anywhere, for any reason. This new power claimed by the President has no basis in federal law or the Constitution. It is an invented power of absolute tyranny that puts the power to decide who lives and who dies in the hands of one man. This document essentially legalizes the President acting as a serial murderer. 23

It is claimed that the purpose of this new power to simply name any American the President doesn't like and immediately have them struck by a Hellfire missile launched from a drone is designed to "protect America." Yet the 16-page memo that claims to justify all this was intentionally written to include Americans on U.S. soil as potential targets. As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained just a few days ago on Fox News: "This 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could... permit the President to kill Americans here in the United States." That's the whole point, actually. If Americans on U.S. soil were to be excluded from such drone assassinations, such language would have been made readily apparent in the memo. But no such language is found in the memo. In fact, the tone of the document quite clearly states that the President has the authority to order drone killings of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, under any circumstances. This legal manipulation even has U.S. Senators worried. Democrat Senator Patrick J Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley sent a letter to Obama on Friday, stating, "The deliberate killing of a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by our government raises significant constitutional and legal concerns." That's the understatement of the year. U.S. Senators are trying to create an "oversight committee" so that a few of them are part of the illegal, unconstitutional decision process of which Americans the U.S. government should murder next. As Kurt Nimmo reports with InfoWars.com: Feinstein has proposed "legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes," in other words a secret tribunal that will hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are "suspected militants." If drones are to be unleashed under the values of Feinstein an outright traitor to the nation and a serial violator of the U.S. Constitution then God help us all. Remember, Feinstein is the Senator who has already said she wants all Americans to turn all their guns in. She literally wants the entire U.S. civilian population disarmed so that government has all the weapons, including drones which Feinstein wants flying over U.S. cities, ready to strike named American citizens at any moment.

The American "battlefield" doctrine and the NDAA

In defending the drone assassination powers of the President, you might hear language used that says drones will "only be used on the battlefield." That seems to imply they will only be used in the Middle East, right? Wrong. The USA has been legally defined as the new "battlefield" by the NDAA. That's the National Defense Authorization Act which also allows for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, without legal representation and even without them ever being charged.

24

The USA is the new "battlefield," and when you combine the NDAA and the DOJ's new drone killing justification memo, you now have the claimed legal framework for any American on U.S. soil to be arrested, detained, tortured or blown to bits without warning and without even a single shred of evidence being presented against him. Yes, this is America today. Right now. You are living under a military dictatorship and most of you don't even realize it yet. Even liberals and progressives are starting to wake up to Obama's tyranny, by the way. On Democracy Now, Daniel Ellsberg recently described Obama's actions as a "systematic assault on the Constitution."

Who are the terrorists?

Of course, anyone who raises these points will be immediately dismissed with the claim that all this new power in the hands of the President will only be used "against terrorists." Okay, then who are the terrorists, exactly? It turns out they are YOU! As Judge Napolitano recently explained: The (Janet Napolitano DHS) memorandum said that people who are pro-life, people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the government is too big and the IRS is too powerful, could be characterized as domestic terrorists. That could characterize two-thirds of the country. (Click here to see related video.) Another DHS report named as terrorists anyone who opposes illegal immigration, abortion or federal taxes.

The pieces of the puzzle

So now it all becomes clear: 1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as "terrorists." 2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claiming they might be associated with "terrorists." 3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn't an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST. And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up. I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them "terrorists" even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.

25

Who is likely on the drone strike target list in the USA

So who is most likely to be assassinated by President Obama once drone strikes are fully unleashed in the USA? Journalists. Political opponents. Anti-government protesters. (One Hellfire missile takes 'em all out.) Online activists. Veterans. Gun owners and gun shops. Constitutionalists and libertarians.

Drone strikes are completely silent because the Hellfire missiles arrive faster than the speed of sound. You don't even hear the missile until after the explosion. The blast radius of a Hellfire missile is 15 - 20 meters, and everything inside that radius is completely obliterated. This is more than enough to destroy entire homes, apartments and office buildings, not to mention vehicles and even light bunkers. World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would "kill journalists" if he won a second term. Farah is not being paranoid. He's right on the money with where this is going. Click here to read his article published right before the 2012 election.

Drones are weapons of tyranny

In the history of America, rifles are the weapons of liberty and in any war limited to just rifles and similar weapons, the People will always achieve victory over tyranny. But tyrannies tend to rise up when specialized, highly-complex weapons come onto the scene, creating an imbalance of military power that suppresses the People. Drones are that new weapon: There is virtually no citizen defense against drones, and drones can strike targets anyone in the country with zero warning. You do not get called to appear in court, you do not get arrested, and you do not receive a warning. You're simply murdered by the U.S. President without warning and without a trial. That's the new America. The cover story: Drone strikes that actually take out the homes of Obama's political enemies can even be explained away as "bombings" using conventional explosives. A convenient cover story can keep drones out of the news, even while drone strikes are taking out journalists, activists and critics of the criminal Obama regime. You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back if drone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).

26

There are also some high-tech defenses against drones. Iran appears to have hacked a drone by feeding it false GPS signals, guiding it to land on an Iranian runway where it was then taken into custody by the government there. This sort of GPS hacking appears to be relatively simple to accomplish, but the technique has never been proven in an actual military conflict. Another defense against drones is to stay on the move. Don't hole up in fixed locations for long periods of time. Drone strikes are only effective if the intended target's location is known with certainty. In a resistance war against a tyrannical government, resistance forces will of course remain very mobile and unpredictable in their locations and movements. This will cause the government to waste lots of Hellfire missiles blowing up empty houses and likely killing the wrong people. Every drone strike against U.S. targets will, of course, enrage the population even further, resulting in yet another mass wave of recruitment into the resistance. The more Americans Obama (or another president) kills with drones, the more powerful the resistance becomes. This spiral continues until there is either a violent armed overthrow of the government or the entire resistance movement is mass murdered by the government itself. In the case of the latter, that's how we end up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictatorial tyrants who assume power in the aftermath of blood running in the streets.

Stop being so naive this is happening NOW!

If you think any of this seems outlandish, you aren't paying attention. The 16-page drone assassination memo has already been published. The NDAA is federal law. The DHS memos are real. All of us who question government, who own firearms, and who believe in the Bill of Rights have already been named terrorists. The stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people. That's the reason DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. It's the reason DHS is buying 7,000 full-auto assault rifles. All these weapons and ammo are for exclusive use inside the United States of America, on U.S. soil. This is why thousands of bulletproof roadside checkpoints have been purchased by DHS. It's why steel cable dividers are being installed on highways, so that you can't turn around when approaching a TSA checkpoint. This is why talk of shooting gun owners is openly tolerated and even encouraged in the mainstream media and on social networks. We are witnessing a full-on ramping up toward total war with the American people. This war will be caused (false-flagged) by the government itself, and it will be waged on U.S. soil, using drone assassinations, nationwide gun confiscation, FEMA camps and of course a declaration of Martial Law to justify it all. The end game is a complete takeover of America by socialist / communist / fascist forces and the outright abolition of liberties and firearms in the hands of citizens. America is scheduled for termination, and people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance. Obama is seductive and hypnotic, so his followers will think he's helping America even while he's actually destroying it by design.

27

Drones are terminators in the sky, controlled by one man a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and respects no boundaries of either the Constitution or federal law. He makes law up as he goes along, betraying his oath of office and violating the very tenants of justice upon which this country was founded. Obama is a traitor to America and a danger to us all. For the sake of America's future, he must be impeached, thrown out of office and replaced with a President who actually upholds the Constitution and respects the laws of the land. Sources for this story include: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_... http://www.infowars.com/it-has-happened-here/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4 http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition...

Obamas Gone Jack Bauer On Us

February 12th 2013

The Obama administration seems to have gone Jack Bauer on us, which would be okay if we were just talking about non-American enemy combatants on some far-flung battlefield. It seems the administration danced its way around case law and the Constitution in an attempt to justify the assassination of three American citizens it refuses to acknowledge it had any part of, post execution. In September 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind behind the failed December 25, 2010 airplane BVD bombing, and his cohort, Samir Khan were killed. Two weeks later, in a separate drone attack, the 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki (a Denver native) followed his fathers fate. According to the Washington Post, a recently leaked white paper from the Justice Departmentpermits the government to kill its citizens in secret while refusing to acknowledge, even after the fact, that it had done so. 28

No matter how evil someone is, it is unnerving that any president wouldnt hesitate to blatantly disregard an American citizens constitutional right to a trial and then make the decision to become prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of that same citizen and not manup afterward. To be clear, the use of drones on the modern battlefield has proven effective; but great ideas in the wrong hands can sour quickly. In the recently crafted white paper, the administration makes a weak argument to justify its seeming extrajudicial power grab by suggesting the use of lethal force against an American citizen is equivalent to George W. Bushs detention of foreign enemy combatants. It seems like only yesterday a then-junior senator from Illinois repetitively repudiated Bushs actions that included the capture, detention, and questioning of non-American enemy combatants, and a military-style christening of a few. Many say Bushs actions led to information regarding Osama bin Ladens whereabouts and eventual elimination. What a difference a little (or a lot of) power makes. Theres a new sheriff in town and, suddenly, the North Star we Americans call the Constitution is no longer the effective navigational tool it once was. Now its okay to assassinate citizens and grant due process to non-citizens. After Obamas election, his administration became obsessed with lavishing constitutional rights on Guantanamo Bay terrorists and tried to move them to New York City where theyd be granted due process. Back in August 2012, Attorney General Holder told Bloomberg he still regrets the missed opportunity. To complicate things, the white paper extends the battlefield to any foreign country. Page 7 suggests clear evidence that a specific act will occur in the near future is not required. Page 11 supports killing those simply in the scheming stage, leaving no room for a change of heart. They are guilty because they thought about it. To be fair, the paper does identify potential targets as high level leaders; and it also lists capture as an option but contradicts itself considering what supposedly happened to the 16-year old Denver resident. Guilty by association? Throughout the 16-page document, the white paper intermittently leaves out the word alQaida, and uses the term terrorist groups (or variants thereof), which would be of no concern were we dealing with a more transparent and less paranoid administration. Lest we forget, they put out the Right-wing extremists watch list in 2009 secretly informing police forces to look out for those who love God, celebrate freedom, adhere to wholesome values, and cherish the Constitution. What one generation does in moderation the next does in excess; the same goes for presidents. Baby steps. As simplistic as it is, two wrongs will never make something right. We are now witnessing liberals using Bushs so-called extra-judicial activities as case law to justify stepping deeper into the darkness in support of third world-like capital punishment without trial. So what might this president, or his successor, try next?

29

The Audacity Of Drones: Keeping Americans Uninformed

February 14th 2013

After four years of the Obama administrations increasing use of remote-controlled, unmanned drones to kill our enemies, there are suddenly a few more in the media feeling obligated to report on the policy. A new set of ethical issues is being discussed. The FAA is looking into how to regulate what some call the drone age. When liberals say things like Bush would have been impeached if he did what Obama is doing, rest assured its newsworthy and conservatives should jump on the story. Tina Brown, editor for the Daily Beast/Newsweek basically admitted to media hypocrisy saying: Hed be impeached by now for drones if he was George W. Bush a Republican president; the outcry about drones would be far greater. Recently, memos on the presidents drone-use policy were released, perhaps to make Obama look stronger in fighting terror. Ironically, when first elected, Obama used the word terror only once in his 2009 inaugural address. Times have changed. The Obama administration has openly carried out more than six times the drone attacks approved by the Bush White House; and the main reason most Americans are unaware is the media looks the other way. Obama made closing the Guantanamo Bay prison a campaign issue and has been unable to follow up on his promise. Instead, he now seems to favor a policy of killing to avoid prisoner detention. With few exceptions, the media has apparently been fine with openly using drones that have killed many innocent bystanders when they feverishly protested the use of enhanced interrogation techniques under Bush. They and Obama considered waterboarding prisoners to be torture; but they justify this policy of bombing suspects with no judicial review or trial. The drone controversy has been brewing for months now. Judge Andrew Napolitano recently emphasized that the governments legal memos on Obamas policy to kill people overseas includes American citizens. Memos were released after a year of stonewalling federal judges who were seeking legal justification on drone use. What is this administrations legal basis for claiming the right to kill without due process, thus suspending guaranteed constitutional protections?

30

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any informed, high-level official of the U.S. government. Under the Constitution, the president can only order killing using the military when the United States has been attacked, or when an attack is imminent. Obama and his advisers have used the word surgical to defend the use of drones as humane and necessary; but the fact is that out of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths, approximately 14 percent have been innocent civilians. Such gravitas caused PBSs Bill Moyers to question those who gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, implying it has become tarnished. Moyers now feels the president is indifferent to collateral damage and even called Obamas drone use cold-blooded. Ultra-liberal Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill even admitted the media refuses to hold Obama accountable, saying I think the problem is we Democrats have convinced ourselves that Obamas drones are somehow softer and kinder and gentler than Bushs drones. Eric Holders Justice Department provided justification for killing the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, in an American drone strike in September 2011. Note that Obama and Holder had the audacity to denounce the legal method of interrogating terrorists by waterboarding, decrying former VP Dick Cheneys defense of the policy. The double standards are astounding. For once, I give the ACLU credit for calling the new memo a disturbing document, saying its a stunning overreach of executive authority. In his confirmation hearing for the CIA, John Brennan defended Obamas counterterrorism program; and despite evidence, he stated that drone attacks are carried out as a last resort, to save lives when there is no other alternative. Where is the line drawn? It should alarm us that our government also has the authority to use drones against its own people. During the Obama administration, conservatives, Tea Party participants, and even our veterans can be scrutinized by as dangerous or suspicious. Referring to a 2012 DHS report, retired Army lieutenant colonel Robert Maginnis writes: Is this a slippery slope whereby the government might turn drone technology on Americans at home it labels terrorists? Thats an alarming thought, but so are past statements made by this government. The 2012 report advocates warning police to be suspicious of anyone that feels their way of life is endangered, anyone that is religious, and anyone that might be interested in personal liberty and/or firearms. The domestic drone market is now expected to grow quickly. Congress must debate this controversial policy and set clear boundaries before it gets out of hand. Im all for defending America, but not at the expense of increased government power and authority over the very citizens theyve pledged to protect and serve.

31

Evangelist Ray Comfort produced a documentary (180 movie) in which he gets people thinking about ethical dilemmas involving life. Comfort asks: Its 1939, you have a highpowered rifle, and you have Hitler in your sights. Would you pull the trigger? After most respond yes, he then asks: If it was 30 years earlier, would you have killed Hitlers pregnant mother knowing what you know now? If drone killing isnt controversial enough for the media to report on, either they dont value all life including life in the womb or they prioritize protecting the president they voted for over telling American citizens the truth. Maybe its both.

Senate Wants Secret Obama Assassination Court

February 14th 2013 By Tim Brown

In the arguments over Barack Obamas kill list and the arrogance of his administration to openly state that they can assassinate American citizens that they determine are terrorists with drone strikes, United States Senators are now wanting a piece of the action. Thats right. They are not demanding that he follow the United States Constitution, specifically the Sixth Amendment, but rather be judge, jury and executioner with them as advisors. U.S. Senators were floating the idea of an assassination court as an attempt to rein in their drone program, but we all know what will really happen when the Senate gets its hands on it; it will expand. Fox News reports, The idea was bandied about during Thursdays confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is worthy of discussion. The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for what some lawmakers see as the administrations unchecked power to kill, even if the target is an American citizen. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said as part of an effort to regulate the killing, she wants to review proposals to create something 32

similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which reviews requests for wiretaps against suspected foreign agents for drone strikes. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is pushing the idea the hardest. According to his vision, the drone court would be an avenue for U.S. officials to argue in secret before a judge why an American citizen should be targeted for death. He said it would be like going to a court for a warrant and proving probable cause. King said, If youre planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-Executive Branch body like the FISA court in a confidential and top-secret way make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant. Forgive me, but what business does the United States Senate, a part of the Legislative Branch, have to do with establishing itself as a member of the Judicial Branch? Do any of these people on Capitol Hill understand their place? Do any of them have any idea what they are supposed to be doing and not doing? Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University said congressional action is clearly unwarranted. President Obama has become the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be. In the face of an imperial president, it is Congress duty under the Constitution to do whatever it can to check such an abuse of power, he wrote in an email. Turley then clarified exactly what I was getting at above when he wrote that a new court would make legitimate the claim of inherent authority by the president to kill citizens without charge or judicial review. A formal process, even if accepted by the White House, could be viewed as a concession that such power exists, he wrote. It would be a lethal version of FISA where constitutional provisions are set aside in favor of a largely meaningless process of review. While there is no doubt that the office of the President of the United States also takes on the role of Commander-in-chief and with that the ability during war to call the shots, the targeting of Americans for assassination is wrong. King right says, I understand you cant have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country. However, it is a dangerous precedent to set by legitimizing Obamas actions in this manner and do you really think you are going to get him to go along with it? Im not going to hold my breath on that one. Wendy Kamner, writing for The Atlantic pens: The FISA court has a record of granting virtually all surveillance applications. A TAP court would probably prove equally obedient. Even if its judges wanted to provide due process, theyd be practically incapable of doing so. An alleged or allegedly aspiring terrorist targeted for killing would never appear before them or be afforded any meaningful representation in absentia.

33

Whats the alternative to a rubber stamp (or velvet glove) court? Political pressure, and perhaps the willingness of the federal judiciary to accept after-the-fact challenges to the legality of targeted killings. Maybe a court reviewing an assassination would find that, under the circumstances, it was a necessary and legitimate executive action. Maybe not. But at least a judicial finding that a killing was justified would follow an adversarial proceeding based on a particular set of facts. She then went on to draw the conclusion we all are thinking and screaming at our computer monitor now: Are targeted killings, like the torture of terror suspects, reactive improvisations necessitated by unpredictable events? Administration officials would answer no. They characterize the killings as proactive deterrents to predictable events. They want us to trust them to make accurate predictions that particular people are planning particular attacks, although their broad definition of imminence doesnt seem to require very particular evidence to back up their predictions. In fact, they appear to be improvising based on a fear of not accurately anticipating attacks. That fear is understandable, but its not a fact that supports a claim of imminence or necessity. The president advances a right of preemptive self-defense to kill Americans. In essence, he argues that he and his appointees have inherent power to stand their ground in the face of perceived threats. He wants us to trust him to perceive imminent threats accurately and to act against them without harming innocent people. Trust us, the Administration would whisper to a special assassinations court, and, in this case, its not hard to predict the courts reply.

These are dangerous times, almost Orwellian. When did you think that in the United States of America there would be open talk of assassination and further yet, that members of Congress would be going along with it?

34

Obama Moves To Authorize Domestic Drone Strikes

February 20th 2013 By Marc Salvo SHTFplan.com

The Department of Homeland Security recently advanced a plan to deploy public safety drones in the skies over America, an action Congress authorized last year and called for the deployment of 30,000 drone surveillance vehicles by 2020. While DHS head Janet Napolitano says the primary mission for domestic drones is for situational awareness in large public safety matters or disasters, President Obama may have a different idea for how best to implement this next generation of frightening surveillance technology. Well known for his obsession with remote drone attacks, reportedly going so far as to personally sit in on unmanned aerial vehicle missions, the President was recently asked about concerns from American citizens about the possibility of extra-judicial military drone strikes within the borders of the United States. Obama has not only failed to deny that he has such plans, but makes it clear that his administration is working closely with Congress to develop a legal framework that will allow the Chief Executive and his subordinates the leeway to initiate strikes right here at home. First of all theres never been a drone used on an American citizen, on American soil. We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside of the United States. I am the head of the Executive branch and what weve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues. Part of what Im going to have to work with Congress on is to make sure that whatever it is were providing Congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands whats going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are. Thats something that I take very seriously. I am not somebody who believes that the President has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counter-terrorism. There have to be checks and balances on it. 35

One can only conclude that military and law enforcement drone strikes will soon be business as usual, and likely the preferred method for dealing with, as the Patriot Act outlines, those who intimidate or coerce the civilian population or attempt to influence government policy pretty much anyone who disagrees with what the government is doing. As Chris Carrington rightly points out about pre-emptive government prosecution, under the National Defense Authorization Act individuals who have committed no crime can be arrested and incarcerated at the will of the government without proven cause. Will this new legal framework now expand on Patriot Act and NDAA to allow for a militarized government response to potential threats? For those who would call for such extreme action as firing a military grade remote Hellfire missile at a domestic target, as the media recently suggested we should do during the hunt for Chris Dorner, consider that Global Research recently reported that over 40% of drone casualties are innocents often children. But such collateral damage would never happen in America, right? The NYPD, for example, would never randomly open fire in the middle of a busy street and shoot civilians. Likewise, the LAPD would never overreact and send a barrage of bullets at two innocent newspaper carriers who happen to be in a vehicle matching the description of what a suspect may be driving. With drones, such incidents would be reduced or all but eliminated right? This legal framework being developed by President Obamas administration with the help of Congress would ensure that no innocents will be killed, right? Law enforcement and military would never target criminals or terrorists if it would endanger innocent Americans who might be in their direct vicinity, right? And never would they be used to target American citizens unless actionable intelligence of an impending threat was real and confirmed by, as President Obama notes, a whole bunch of safeguards. To paraphrase President Obama, Diane Feinstein and the many Congressional representatives who support a safer America, its time we start disarming those who have access to these weapons of mass destruction. These military style assault weapons have no use in hunting or sporting, and have no business being on the streets of America. Similar/Related Articles: US Congressmen demand justification for drone strikes Obama ups Pakistan drone strikes in assassination campaign Obama Moves To Conceal Drone Death Figures Obama Administration Needs to Explain Drone Strikes Over 700 killed in 44 drone strikes in 2009 Foreign Lawmakers Slam Assassin Obama Over Drone Strikes U.S. increases Yemen drone strikes The flawed strategy of drone strikes Pakistan Urges a Permanent Solution on U.S. Drone Strikes Taliban to ban polio vaccinations for children until US stops drone strikes 36

Pakistan drone strikes: the CIAs secret war America Loves Drone Strikes

Theres An Even Worse Scandal Hidden In Obamas Secret Drone Memo!

February 23rd 2013 By Mike Kelley

The Obama administration's classified legal memos justifying targeted killings contain potentially shady protocols with foreign governments and case-specific details of strikes, two sources aware of their contents told Krisitn Roberts and Michael Hirsch of the National Journal. The accords with foreign governments which include Pakistan and Yemen are a key element excluded from the Department of Justice (DOJ) white paper. A legal expert outside the government "who is intimately familiar with the contents of the memos" told the Journal that targeted-killing memos written by the DOJs Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) are being withheld to protect this information. The Senate and House intelligence committees have only been allowed to examine four of the nine OLC memos. The expert told the Journal that the administration believes Congress would leak the information to the public, which could be extremely embarrassing to the U.S. and its foreign partners given the unpopularity of the drone program and any legal or ethical liberties taken in the agreements. The DOJ white paper summarized the legal reasoning behind targeting U.S. citizens abroad if they are believed to be senior leaders of al-Qaeda or "an associated force," even if there is no evidence of an imminent plot against the U.S. A former State Department legal counsel told the Journal that even if the memos contain secret protocols, theres no reason why that information couldnt be redacted and the rest of the memos released.

37

The legal expert noted that it's unclear how many secret government-to-government protocols exist, but leaders of Algeria and Mali may have signed agreements.

Lobbyist Demands Approval For Lethal Drones Within United States

February 25th 2013 By Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

Testifying against a bill that would put limits on the use of unmanned drones in Washington state, industry lobbyist Paul Applewhite shocked a House Committee hearing when he said that drones had been used for indiscriminate killings, while arguing that the technology should be approved for lethal force within the United States.

Lobbyist: Use Drones to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bh82f9dLIDI Applewhite is president of Seattle-based Applewhite Aero, a company founded to provide unmanned systems and training to government and industry. When asked if restrictions should be placed on the use of drones until the direction of where the technology is going becomes clearer, Applewhite responded, My opinion is that the way that were currently using drones in warfare, were moving away from indiscriminate killing to discriminate killing, prompting gasps from the audience. Applewhite said the decision about who gets zapped on the other side of the planet was a legitimate concern, but advocated that unmanned drones be used to hunt down murder suspects domestically, as some suggested during the recent Christopher Dorner manhunt. The lobbyist argued that the necessity to document the use of drones was discouraging law enforcement officials from deploying them, and that every police officer, has lethal force on their hip were saying we give them the judgment to be able to pull this thing out and use it up to and including lethal force. Why is this technology so much different to say youve got it in your trunk, pull it out, use it now, he added. Up until now, unmanned drones have only been used for lethal purposes abroad in countries like Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although the Obama administration claims the drone 38

program has been used to carry out targeted killings of known terrorists and militants, almost 5,000 people have been killed in total, many of them innocent bystanders, including at least 176 children. On average, 50 innocent people are killed for every suspected terrorist who dies in a drone strike. Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but were at war, and weve taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said last week. Three American citizens, including 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, have been killed by drone strikes but none so far on U.S. soil. By advocating that authorities be given the power to use drones to assassinate targets on domestic soil, Applewhite is pushing for a Judge Dredd style system of justice where cops and potentially the military and government agencies become judge, jury and executioner. I was stunned along with the rest of the people in the hearing when I heard the stunning admission from Mr. Applewhite that we had at one time practiced indiscriminate killing in this country. This is absolutely the reason why we cannot trust a government that condones at any time indiscriminate killing of any person, especially without due process, State Senate hopeful Travis Couture responded. During his testimony, Applewhite also advocated that drones be parked permanently above schools as well as being used to monitor highways for traffic accidents, asking, Why are we denying ourselves this great technology? However, he did express the fact that he was Worried about one of these parked over the top of my house and being used for surveillance by an overzealous government. Applewhites insistence that armed drones be used to hunt down suspects domestically is unsurprising given the financial windfall it would offer for the industry he represents. As we reported last year, following remarks by Charles Krauthammer that the first person to shoot down a surveillance drone on U.S. soil will be a folk hero, the drone industry launched a PR blitz aimed at bombard(ing) the American public with positive images and messages about drones in an effort to reverse the growing perception of the aircraft as a threat to privacy and safety. Earlier this month, Federal Aviation Administration Jim Williams said that current rules prevent drones from being armed within the United Stated and that we dont have any plans of changing [those rules] for unmanned aircraft. The Department of Homeland Security recently reiterated its intention to use public safety drones to spy on American citizens. Experts predict that there will be 30,000 surveillance drones in American skies by 2020 following a bill passed last year by Congress that permits the use of unmanned aerial spy vehicles on domestic soil. In a related story, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted yesterday that he was told by officials to not even acknowledge the existence of the drone strike program when he got the job, labeling the order inherently crazy. When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, youre not even to acknowledge the drone program, Gibbs said on MSNBCs Up With Chris Hayes on Sunday. Youre not even to discuss that it exists. 39

Does The Obama Administration Think It Has The Right To Assassinate Citizens On US Soil?
February 27th 2013 By Tim Brown

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) continually pressed Obama nominee for Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan to see if he believed the Federal government has the authority to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil for simply being suspected of terrorist involvement. His answers were evasive and failed to answer anything. In fact, any Americans awake would have to conclude that the current administration, by being evasive in its answers, does think it has the authority to assassinate citizens on U.S. soil. If not then let them be transparent about it. The former Obama assassination czar was pressed by Senator Paul on several occasions to answer if he believed the Constitution gave the government that kind of authority. The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so, wrote Paul in a letter to Brennan which as of today remains unanswered. Brennan was asked numerous times during confirmation hearings in the Senate just how far the administration can go with executing U.S. citizens, which according to legal opinion from the Obama Department of Justice (how credible is that?) can be done overseas. However, every time the question has been put to him, he dodges it. A controversial memo was leaked from the DOJ three weeks ago that read in part The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, in order to assassinate American citizens if they are suspected of terrorist activity or being involved with terrorists.

40

However, Brennan did not limit the scope of such assassinations to the battlefield. The Guardian reports, Brennans answer was that, in essence, there are no geographic limits to this power: we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qaida and associated forces as being limited to hot battlefields like Afghanistan. He then quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as saying: neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan. At one point in the hearings, Brennan was asked, Could the administration carry out drone strikes inside the United States? This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so, he responded. Sorry that was not the correct answer nor was it even remotely close to the question asked. But, Brennan is not the only one unwilling to answer the question. Barack Obama will not give a definitive answer on the question. When Obama was asked if drone strikes could be used against U.S. citizens within the U.S., his reply was as evasive as Brennans. There has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil, he said. The continued secrecy around the drone program continues to be a stumbling block for many of us who value liberty, freedom and law. Why is this such a difficult question to answer? It should be a simply No. We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesnt know much more, said Virginia E. Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, a civil liberties group in Washington. YouTube appearances and speeches, she said, referring to the presidents online appearances and officials public remarks, are absolutely no substitute for having the actual memos in hand. Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, an advocacy group, said the administration had a long way to go to fulfill its promise of greater openness. President Obama and Mr. Brennan have both pledged transparency, she said. Lets see it. I think Ms. Massimino has very good point.

Bush's third term: U.S. government can order killing of American citizens by secret drone strikes
March 4th 2013

41

The continued political polarization of the American people is leading the nation straight into tyranny. Less than a decade ago, the so-called political "left" was up in arms over Bush administration policies that permitted "waterboarding" of suspected terrorists, for instance, or unwarranted phone tapping of those perceived to be a "threat" to national security. But today, this same group of political opportunists seems gleefully supportive of Obama administration policies that are far more offensive, including the outrageous declaration recently that targeting and assassinating American citizens with secret drone strikes is perfectly acceptable and legal. In a telling indictment of just how far we have fallen into despotism as a society, Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass explains in a recent article how the false "left-right" political paradigm is basically the catalyst through which the perpetual trashing of the U.S. Constitution has been able to take place. It is only because "their" man is on the throne, in other words, that hardcore Democrats who once opposed wars and unconstitutional foreign policies are now in seemingly lockstep support of the Obama administration's flagrant and escalating constitutional abuses. "He can (now) assassinate American citizens abroad without fair trial if they're suspected terrorists," explains Kass about the recent unveiling of the true tenets of the formerly mysterious Obama Doctrine. "His weapon of choice? Drone strikes from the air. Drones are politically antiseptic weapons of death, almost like a video game, except that real blood and tissue is blown against the walls. And it's all being done in secret."

Illegal drone strikes: Bush's third term

Kass also goes on to confront the treasonous double standard by which many members of the U.S. Congress are handling the situation, as they refuse to hold the occupying administration responsible for adding yet another layer to the military-industrial dictatorship that increasingly threatens us all. As stated plainly by Kass in his article, the Obama White House has now put it into writing that anyone even suspected of being a terrorist threat, whatever that even means, can be murdered by a secret drone strike without warrant, trial, or any other form of due process. Such mindless support of evil policies such as this is not unique to the left, of course, as the right has been programmed to do the exact same thing. Many of those who are now rightly calling out the Obama administration for far overstepping its constitutional bounds were all but silent when the Bush administration foisted the Patriot Act on the American public. This massive surveillance and spying initiative, which is responsible for creating the illegal federal government security force we now know as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), was merely a precursor to the more extreme initiatives that are now being enacted by the Obama administration. Besides the fact that Obama has fully embraced, and even taken to the next level, many Bush administration policies he opposed while on the campaign trail, many of his supporters do not even seem to notice this monumental hypocrisy. And if a Republican were president, the same would be true of the right's response, as the blinders of American zombie-ism work quite well depending on who currently occupies the White House. Why is this important? Because this "divide and conquer" approach is how evil is advanced, and how tyrants achieve their ultimate goals. It has been utilized over and over again throughout history because it dulls rational thought and turns populations into masses of 42

mindless followers. And slowly, incrementally, like a frog boiling in a pot of water, freedoms are eliminated, liberty is stamped out, and the people become enslaved.

Sources for this article include: http://articles.chicagotribune.com http://burnpit.legion.org http://thestir.cafemom.com

Yes, Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

March 5th 2013 By Adam Salazar Infowars.com

Despite reassurances following the Christopher Dorner manhunt that lethal drones wont be used to target American citizens on U.S. soil, a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul states otherwise. It is possibleto imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States, the letter partially posted by Mother Jones states. Sen. Pauls concerns that the government may use armed drones to target American citizens was the main reason he threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan to head up the CIA. When Brennan referred Sen. Paul to the Department of Justice, this is the response he got from Holder: As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy 43

matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. The U.S. Attorney Generals refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, Sen. Paul said in a statement on his Senate website Tuesday. It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans. The Department of Homeland Security faced criticism following an unsubstantiated report that surveillance drones were being used to aid the manhunt for suspected cop killer Christopher Dorner. U.S. Customs and Border Protection were quick to issue a response denying their use of drones in attempts to quell the publics outrage, and shortly thereafter, the Federal Aviation Administration reassured the public that lethal drones would never be used. Many, however, were dismissive or oblivious of the fact that government surveillance drones have already been used to spy on members of the public. In 2011, police in Grand Forks, North Dakota called in a favor from their buddies at the Department of Homeland Security to use one of their drones to monitor the Brossart family farm after six cows had reportedly wandered onto their property. Drones are also routinely used to survey agricultural conditions and enforce environmental laws throughout the country. Last June, the EPA responded to a letter from Nebraskas congressional delegation saying they would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act, a fact they later denied following intense media scrutiny. Indeed, the FAA has already secured authorization to have anywhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 drones criss-crossing the skies by 2020. Public sentiment towards drone use in America has shifted greatly in response to rumors of alleged drone use in the Dorner manhunt. Also, last month a 16-page Justice Department memo concerning legal drone assassinations of American citizens was leaked fueling further concerns that drones can and will be used to hunt and target American civilians.

44

Just six months ago, a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National Constitution Center found that more Americans supported than opposed the use of surveillance drones by domestic law enforcement agencies, writer and editor for PrisonPlanet.com Steve Watson wrote recently. Now, in the latest poll, 57 percent of respondents say it is unconstitutional to order the killing of Americans overseas. Even more 59 percent believe that the federal government abuses its power when it comes to targeted strikes. Moreover, 47 percent of respondents to the latest poll said they believe they have a right to destroy a UAV if it flies over their house without their permission.

Related Articles:
Police Set To Use Armed Drones Against Americans Rand Pauls Third Letter to the CIA: Can You Kill with Drones in the USA? Drones Can Detect if Citizen is Armed Poll: Almost Half Of Americans Believe They Have Right To Shoot Down Government Spy Drones

Attorney General Holder: President Obama Can Assassinate Americans On U.S. Soil
March 6th 2013

Attorney general Eric Holder wrote the following to Senator Rand Paul yesterday: On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administrations views about whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial. As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have 45

a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority. Theres more to the following statement than appears at first blush: As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. Specifically, Holder did not say we are legally constrained by the Constitution from depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and from using military force on U.S. soil. Instead, he said that the Obama administration was so far abstaining from using a power it already has as a current policy decision. John Glaser notes: The concluding legal opinion represents a radical betrayal of constitutional limits imposed on the state for depriving citizens of life, liberty and property. Officially now, Obamas kingly authority to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner and deprive Americans of their life without due process of law applies not only to Americans abroad but to citizens that are inside the United States. The US Attorney Generals refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans, Sen. Paul said in a statement. Holder, along with the Obama administration, is making it seem as if the Presidents use of lethal force, as in the drone war, would only be used in circumstances like another impending 9/11 attack or something. Only when an attack is imminent. But that categorical limitation on the Presidents authority to kill depends upon their definition of imminence, which we learned from a leaked Justice Department white paper last month, is extremely broad. The memo refers to what it calls a broader concept of imminence than what has traditionally been required, like actual intelligence of an ongoing plot against the US. The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific 46

attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, the memo states, contradicting conventional international law. Instead, so long as an informed, high-level US official claims the targeted American has been recently involved in activities that pose a threat and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, then the President can order his assassination. The memo does not define recently or activities. Holder also insists that in the case of such extraordinary circumstances, like another impending 9/11, he would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority. Boy, do I feel comforted. This is not entirely surprising. As we noted in December 2011, a top constitutional expert confirmed that Obama was claiming the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. We reported that month: For more than a year and a half, the Obama administration has said it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. But now, as shown by the debates surrounding indefinite detention, the government is saying that America itself is a battlefield. AP notes today: U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday. The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy. The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant. We pointed out a year ago, the director of the FBI said hed have to check to see if the president had the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. We reported last October that form Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo the guy who wrote the memo justifying torture, even of children, which was used to justify torture of innocent people, including children said that the president has the power to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil in times of war. And Mother Jones notes: In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know thats exactly what was happening. 47

It is not very reassuring that the same unaccountable agency which decides who should be killed by drones also spies on all Americans. Indeed: You might assume in a vacuum that this might be okay (even though it trashes the Constitution, the separation of military and police actions, and the division between internal and external affairs). But it is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. And see this. And it is problematic in a period in which FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power, and even former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection. And it is counter-productive in an age when the government instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer are doing things which increase the risk of terrorism. And it is insane in a time of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this. And when the War on Terror in the Middle East and North Africa which is being used to justify the attack on Americans was planned long before 9/11. And when Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is a mythical historical narrative. And 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but wasnt stopped. Indeed, no one in Washington even wants to hear how 9/11 happened, even though that is necessary to stop future terrorist attacks. And the military has bombed a bunch of oilrich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Laden years ago. As noted in an analogous context: The governments indefinite detention policy stripped of its spin is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of PR, this is the actual policy: If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain. you indefinitely until the war is over. It is a perpetual war, which will never be over. Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers. But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security. We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention dont apply to you Since you admitted that youre a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention. 48

See how that works?

And given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then drop automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism. Read this if you have any doubt as to how much liberty Americans have lost. Senator Paul told MSNBC: The response by Holder could lead to a situation where an Arab-American in Dearborn Michigan is walking down the street emailing with a friend in the Mideast and all of a sudden we drop a drone on him. He said it was really shocking that President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, would leave the door open to such a possibility.

Truebut you dont have to be Arab-American to get in trouble.

Rand Paul: Obama Wants No Judicial Oversight To Kill An American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYC7Ch-_kBs

49

50