" Look Into It - Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

 

 

 

 
  
                                               

welcome

 

 

Yes, Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

“The U.S. Attorney General’s 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.”

A.G. Eric Holder -- 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.

Drone strikes have killed American citizens in the past [without constitutional due process], as was the case in Yemen with Anwar Awlaki and his son 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

 

 


 

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against YouDespite reassurances following the Christopher Dorner manhunt that lethal drones won’t be used to target American citizens on U.S. soil, a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul states otherwise.

An armed MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft sits in a shelter Oct. 15 at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, before a mission.

“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,” the letter partially posted by Mother Jones states.

Sen. Paul’s 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 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 General’s 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 in California earlier this year.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection were quick to issue a response denying their use of drones – in attempts to quell public 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 DHS 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 Nebraska’s 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.

“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.”

Drone strikes have killed American citizens in the past, as was the case in Yemen with Anwar Awlaki and his son 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proof: DHS Flying Killer Drones In US

Published on Feb 13, 2015

An InfoWars exclusive look at a FOIA document that shows who was using predator drones and reapers domestically in 2014 while the FAA was cracking done on model planes with a legal prevarication that usurped authority over even Frisbees

 

 

 

 

 



Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

Rand Paul: Drones Could Be Targeted At Americans Eating Dinner At Home

Privacy group petitioning government on drone capability to identify armed individuals, intercept cell phones


Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2013

Senator Rand Paul lashed out at the Obama administration last night following suggestions by Attorney General Eric Holder that the president is within his rights to assassinate Americans on American soil using drone strikes, without oversight.

“The thing about the drone strike program is, we’re not talking about someone’s actively attacking America, we’re not talking about planes flying into the World Trade Center.” Paul said in a Fox News interview.

“What we’re talking about is you’re eating dinner in your house. you’re eating at a cafe or you’re walking down the road. That’s when these drone strikes can occur.” Paul added, calling the development “particularly disturbing”.

“If you’re an American and you’re accused of a crime, one of the basic principles, one of the protections we’ve always had is, you get a trial… You don’t get convicted without a trial.” the Senator added.

“Listen to what his [Obama's] response is.” Paul urged. “His response is, we haven’t killed any Americans yet. We don’t intend to, but we might. And that’s pretty disturbing.”

 

 

Paul was speaking in reaction to Eric Holder’s response to his own letter asking if Americans could be targeted with drones.

Holder wrote that it was “possible,” for President Obama to “authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” citing the 9/11 terror attacks as an example.

In a further statement today, Holder told Congress that the federal government has “no intention” of using drones to strike at targets within the U.S., saying it’s easier to capture people here so that tool is not as important.

“The use of drones is from my perspective something that is entirely, entirely hypothetical,” he said.

Senator Paul has called for a pledge from the White House that drone strikes will not be used in America regardless of the circumstances.

“We’re talking about someone eating at a cafe in Boston, or New York, and a Hellfire missile comes raining in on them,” Paul said during a previous appearance on Fox News. “There should be an easy answer from the administration on this. They should say, ‘Absolutely no, we will not kill Americans in America without an accusation, a trial and a jury.’”

“The U.S. Attorney General’s 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,” Paul wrote in a further statement on his website.

Meanwhile, where domestic drone use for surveillance is concerned, advocacy group the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) issued a statement on its website announcing that it is officially petitioning U.S. Customs and Border Protection over revelations that unmanned Predator drones under the agency’s operation can listen in on electronic communications.

EPIC noted that documents it recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the agency’s drones will be equipped with technology for signals interception and human identification.

The 2010 DHS “performance specification” document EPIC has uncovered states that “communication relay and interception” are preferable operations to use drones for, rather than relying on “sensors mounted in airships, aerostats, towers, and manned aircraft”. The document states that the capability has not yet been tested in the field.

According to the document, the drones are to have a “signals interception receiver,” that would be capable of intercepting cell phone and radio communications transmissions.

The Homeland Security design requirements also specify that the Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

 

 


 



 

Aaron Dykes Confronted a Drone Pilot!!

Who flies the drones America uses to take out military targets in foreign locales all over the globe? Aaron Dykes had the chance to talk to an Air Force drone pilot operating out of Whiteman Air Force Base, and astonishingly, he admitted to me that he took part in strikes on wedding parties in Middle East & Asian countries said to harbor terrorists.
Aaron Dykes confronted him with some of the troubling news that has emerged about the secret White House kill list and the apparent readiness to destroy the lives of innocent bystanders in pursuit of a target -- women, children and elderly villagers who are all considered nothing more than "collateral damage."

Did he, too, find these people dispensable? Did he share the cold rationale of our leaders that it is "worth it" to kill these civilians to target an enemy? Aaron Dykes tried to find out when Dykes saw him during a wedding he attended, all while Dykes was deeply aware of the unsettling irony that the celebration we were attending was seen differently than the weddings, funerals and other gatherings that U.S. airstrikes have unofficially declared to be venues of war.

Allowance for the use of short news clips used reasonably falls under the "fair use" doctrine. Under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, and research.

 

 

 

 

Obama

the Assassin-in-Chief

 Unmanned:

America's Drone Wars

 We Have to Talk

About the Boy in the Ambulance...

 

Newsbud Interview: Peter B. Collins presents Prof. Rebecca Gordon
Professor Rebecca Gordon comments on the July 1 White House release of estimates of civilian deaths from drone strikes targeting “militants” who pose and “imminent” threat to American interests, and concludes that most of the deaths “are almost certainly illegal” under US and international law. In this Newsbud interview, we discuss the drone programs, the precedents established under Obama, and the failure of Congress to pass any laws regulating this form of remote-control warfare

 

"Unmanned" investigates the impact of U.S. drone strikes at home and abroad, observing their effect on the War on Terror, the lives of individuals, and U.S. foreign policy.

 

I wasn't going to, but then I saw the CNN anchor pretend to cry...

Truthstream Can Be Found Here:
Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com (under construction! Currently using Tumblr backup: truthstream-blog.tumblr.com/)
FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Amazon Affiliate Link (help support TSM with every Amazon purchase, no cost to you!): http://amzn.to/2aTARRx
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

 

Obama's Next Assassination Target

Sources and transcript: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-r...

 

LINKS:

KILLING CIVILIANS WITH DRONES

DRONES

Assassination Program

You Are Being Targeted

Obama Orders Children Murdered!!

Propagandizing Through Video Games

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

 

 

 



 

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

Attorney General Holder: Prez Can Assassinate Americans On U.S. Soil

 

Washington’s Blog
March 6, 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 Administration’s 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 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.

There’s 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 acurrent “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, Obama’s 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 General’s 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 President’s 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 President’s 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 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 he’d 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 that’s exactly what was happening.

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 – admitst hat 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 Carter’s 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 wasn’t 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 oil-rich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Ladenyears ago.

As I noted in [an analogous context]:

The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., 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
  • But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security

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 (Mich.) 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.

True … but you don’t have to be Arab-American to get in trouble.

This article was posted: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 5:59 am

Tags: , ,

 

 

 

 

 

Mastering The Human Domain

  • Who You Are – Collected information includes names, addresses, biometrics, social media accounts . 
  • What You Do – Travel history, communications, financial transactions and movement of physical assets. 
  • Who You Know – Relational information including family, friends, associates and organizations. 
  • Context – Contextual data such as demographics, politics, cultural norms and religion. 

 

A closer look at the upcoming Jade Helm military exercise, specifically its “master the human domain” motto, reveals a larger agenda in regards to domestic policy.

...“They’re building an infrastructure of tyranny,” stated Infowars David Knight. “There’s a legal infrastructure with things like the NDAA, there’s a technical infrastructure with things like the capability to do dragnet surveillance, and then of course there is going to be a military and law enforcement infrastructure, and those are merging.”

 

Synopsis

 

Full Presentation

 

LINK : TOTAL POPULATION CONTROL

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSASSINATION PROGRAM

Assassination Program

Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?

LINK: Assassination Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

Legal Loophole: White House Reserves Right to Homeland Drone Strikes, Indefinite Detention

 

Infowars.com
March 12, 2013

In this March 11, 2013 edition of the Infowars Nightly News, host Aaron Dykes explains how letters and memos from the Department of Justice make clear that as long as the U.S. remains committed to the farcical War on Terror, the NDAA gives the White House the excuse to kill Americans on U.S. soil via drone strikes, etc. and indefinitely detain anyone it claims is engaged in hostilities, all outside of law.

 

 

The Department of Justice Did NOT Disclaim Murder of Americans by Drone

 

Washington’s Blog
March 11, 2013

As we noted Friday, Attorney General Holder’s statement that the president will not assassinate non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil with a drone left a huge loophole, and raised more questions than it answered.

Later that day, top constitutional and military law expert Jonathan Turley agreed:

We previously discussed how Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter confirming that the President would have authority to kill citizens on U.S. soil without a charge or conviction. His answer triggered a principled filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul and another embarrassment to Democratic Senators who, again, chose personality over principle in staying silent. Now, Holder has issued a new statement. No, President Obama still claims the right to kill U.S. citizens on his sole authority. However, Holder now says that, if the citizen is “not engaged in combat on American soil,” the President cannot vaporize him.The answer leaves the constitutional claim of Obama even more confused and conflicted. Does this mean we have a third category now under the policy: citizen, citizen terrorist, and citizen non-combatant terrorist?

In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “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.”

Last week, Holder said “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.”

***

It is not clear what Holder means by “engaged in combat” since the Administration memo shows that the Administration is using an absurdly broad definition of “imminent” threat under the kill list policy. Since the Administration has continued to assert that terrorists are engaged in a war against the U.S., the terse reply of Holder seems designed to preserve later flexibility.

Moreover, there is nothing in the constitutional claim of the Administration that reflects such a limitation. Deciding on where to kill a citizen would be an discretionary policy under the sweeping presidential authority described by the Administration. As noted in earlier columns (here and here and here), it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, Obama is saying that his appointment of a non-binding committee satisfied due process and relieves any need for judicial review. Moreover, if the President has the inherent authority to kill a citizen in Canada, it is not clear why such inherent authority would not exist a few hundred yards away in Detroit. The Administration has said that it can use the unilateral power when it considers a capture to pose undue risk to its personnel.

What is particularly striking is that we have a president who is asserting the right to kill any citizen but the Administration has classified memos on that authority and the Attorney General will only give a Senator a terse two line conclusory statement on scope. The Administration appears to believe that there is little need to explain the details on killing citizens, such as how it defines “combat.” Obviously, if there is a war occurring in the United States, a president has the right to put down insurrection or attacks on the federal government. These strikes concern targeting terrorists. One can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of combat.

It would seem an obvious thing to explain how they define combat and whether an alleged terrorist would fall into it. Does this mean that there will be a category of non-combatant terrorists for domestic strikes? How is that defined? It seems like a hole big enough to fly a drone through.Since police can already use lethal force to stop an attack in progress, the answer leaves more questions than it answers in my view. For a citizen it would mean that he or she can be killed abroad on the basis of the Administration’s wildly broad definition of “imminent” but domestically would fall under a different “combat” definition. Where is the line between an “imminent” threat and “combat” drawn? Does Holder mean there is a different meaning to imminence when someone steps over the border? We already have the definition of “imminent” and the Administration’s new definition of “imminent.” Is this yet a third option?

Today, former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald weighs in:

As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, “the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat.” That phrase – “engaged in combat” – does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being “engaged in combat”.

Indeed, the whole point of the Paul filibuster was to ask whether the Obama administration believes that it has the power to target a US citizen for assassination on US soil the way it did to Anwar Awlaki in Yemen. The Awlaki assassination was justified on the ground that Awlaki was a “combatant”, that he was “engaged in combat”, even though he was killed not while making bombs or shooting at anyone but after he had left a cafe where he had breakfast. If the Obama administration believes that Awlaki was “engaged in combat” at the time he was killed – and it clearly does – then Holder’s letter is meaningless at best, and menacing at worst, because that standard is so broad as to vest the president with exactly the power his supporters now insist he disclaimed.

The phrase “engaged in combat” has come to mean little more than: anyone the President accuses, in secrecy and with no due process, of supporting a Terrorist group. Indeed, radically broad definitions of “enemy combatant” have been at the heart of every War on Terror policy, from Guantanamo to CIA black sites to torture. As Professor Goodman wrote:

“By declining to specify what it means to be ‘engaged in combat’ the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario – however hypothetical – of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas . . .

“The Obama administration’s continued refusal to do so should alarm any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens – no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in – to due process under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder’s seemingly simple but maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance.”

Indeed, as both Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller and Marcy Wheeler noted, Holder, by deleting the word “actively” from Paul’s question (can you kill someone not “actively engaged in combat”?), raised more questions than he answered. As Professor Heller wrote:

“‘Engaged in combat’ seems like a much broader standard than ‘senior operational leader’. which the recently disclosed White Paper described as a necessary condition of killing an American citizen overseas. Does that mean the President can kill an American citizen inside the US who is a lower-ranking member of al-Qaeda or an associated force? . . . .

“What does ‘engaged in combat’ mean? That is a particularly important question, given that Holder did not restrict killing an American inside the US to senior operational leaders and deleted ‘actively’ from Paul’s question. Does ‘engaging’ require participation in planning or executing a terrorist attack? Does any kind of direct participation in hostilities qualify? Do acts short of direct participation in hostilities – such as financing terrorism or propagandizing – qualify? Is mere membership, however loosely defined by the US, enough?”

Particularly since the Obama administration continues to conceal the legal memos defining its claimed powers – memos we would need to read to understand what it means by “engaged in combat” – the Holder letter should exacerbate concerns, not resolve them. As Digby, comparing Bush and Obama legal language on these issues,wrote yesterday about Holder’s letter: “It’s fair to say that these odd phrasings and very particular choices of words are not an accident and anyone with common sense can tell instantly that by being so precise, they are hiding something.”

At best, Holder’s letter begs the question: what do you mean when you accuse someone of being “engaged in combat”? And what are the exact limits of your power to target US citizens for execution without due process? That these questions even need to be asked underscores how urgently needed Paul’s filibuster was, and how much more serious pushback is still merited. But the primary obstacle to this effort has been, and remains, that the Democrats who spent all that time parading around as champions of these political values are now at the head of the line leading the war against them.

Note: In addition to drones, the highly-militarized American police are another major threat to our life, liberty, and property.

This article was posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 10:42 am

Tags: , ,

 

 

 

 

Robert Gibbs Lied to America about The Drone Prgm. 

Drone Denial by Lame Stream Media

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Declares War on American People



http://www.infowars.com/inside-the-ri...
Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people's concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.
http://www.infowars.com/dod-directive...
http://www.infowars.com/obama-conside...
Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones
Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/
Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme...

LINK :

Executive Orders

DRONES

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

 

 

 







Police State 4 (Full Movie)

 

 

 

 

 

The lies are getting too ridiculous.

 

 

 

Related Articles

Related Articles

This article was posted: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Tags:

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRONES

 

The First Rule Of The Drone Program Is That You Do Not Talk About The Drone Program

...One of the first things they told me was, you’re not even to acknowledge the drone program,” Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes” this past weekend. Gibbs said that he was told “You’re not even to discuss that it exists.” Noting that the notion was “inherently crazy”, Gibbs said “You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists.” “So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program—pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Gibbs, who was Press Secretary between 2009 and 2011, said.

...Gibbs stated that he expects the drone program to remain secret for the most part, despite moves in Congress to force more transparency. “I have not talked to him about this, so I want to be careful,” Gibbs said, “but I think what the president has seen is, our denial of the existence of the program when it’s obviously happening undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes.”

...Akram, who noted that US drone strikes had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Pakistan, also said “We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the ‘war against terror’. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them.

Former Obama Press Secretary Was Ordered To Act As If Drone Program Did Not Exist

 

 

 

 

 

-- Harriet Tubman --

 

"I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more, if only they knew they were slaves."

 

Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures.

"A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it.”

- Aldous Huxley -

LINK :

Bread and Circus

 

 

 

 

 

REACH OUT TO OTHERS

[Help Educate Family And Friends With This Page And The Links Below]

 

 


 

Yes Your Government Can Use Armed Drones Against You

MORE:

DRONES

Assassination Program

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

DHS Preparing For 7-Year War Against American People

Police Trained That Informed Americans Are Terrorists

Law Enforcement Requested Shooting Targets of Pregnant Women

Federal Government Moves to Disarm Veterans

Prisons for American Veterans

NDAA

Police State 1

Police State 2

Police State 3

Police State 4 movie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

look into it videos 

 

 

invisible empire

 

 

hollerith dvd

 

obama deception

 

fall of the republic

 

Aaron Russo 

 

Terror Storm final cut 

 

 

police state 2000 

 

police state 2 the takeover

 

police state 3 total enslavement

 

police state 4

 

911 the road to tyranny

 

masters of terror

 

martial law 911 rise of the police state

 

blueprint of madmen

 

endgame