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 café 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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment