Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Death By Drone--Obama's War on American Citizens

Before the 2012 Presidential election it was reported (NY Times May 30, 2012) that Barack personally approved the names put on the "kill lists" used in the targeted killing operations.  If that’s the case, then Barack is personally responsible for the killing of a 16-year-old American citizen named Abdulrahman  al-Awlaki.  Abdulrahman was the son of a terrorist, but he hadn't seen his dad in years and he wasn't a member of any terrorist organization...he was just eating lunch at an outside cafĂ© in Yemen. 
In the fall of 2011, Obama ordered the killing of at least three American citizens.  One could argue that two of those Americans that were killed by drone may have deserved their fate, but due process considerations were ignored by this President.

In October of 2012, White House propaganda chief Robert Gibbs was asked how Obama justified the killing of the sixteen year old American.  Mr. Gibbs responded in his usual pompous manner by saying, “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

That statement might have made more sense if Abdulrahman was hanging out with his terrorist dad when his dad happened to be hit by the drone, but that’s not what happened.  Today we learn about a secretive Justice Department memo that provides new information about the legal reasoning behind the Obama regimes controversial kill-list policies.
The secret memo concludes that the U.S. government (Obama) 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 United States.
In a speech at Northwestern University Law School in March 2012, 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. 
A high-level government official 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.”

This is a slippery slope for many legal reasons and Obama must be challenged to explain his actions.  This story has legs and it won’t be going away anytime soon.  The reason it won’t be going away anytime soon is because the mainstream media actually have an interest in this story, unlike Benghazi or other Obama controversies.   

The Obama regime doesn’t like the term “kill-list,” rather, they prefer to call it "disposition matrix.”  "Man-Caused Disasters" instead of terrorism and "Overseas Contingency Operation" for the war on terror comes to mind.          

Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment