Thread: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s Kill List

The Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s Kill List

June 1, 2012 by Sam Rolley

UPI

Drone attacks occur frequently in countries where the United States is not at war.

Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Barack Obama has used drones as his personal angels of death (more than 281 times in Pakistan alone) to kill hundreds of people whom the Administration defines as “militants.”

What exactly is a militant? Allow The New York Times to explain:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.

Remember, these drone attacks occur frequently in countries where the United States is not at war. If police departments followed the Obama Administration’s logic about suspects, then they would shoot every innocent person in the immediate vicinity of a dangerously armed criminal or perhaps anyone who resides in a bad neighborhood.

The fact that a President who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize would kill all of the military-aged men in a given area only because it is one where terrorist activity is expected to have occurred is also largely ignored by Obama’s puppet media. Imagine the consternation that would occur within Obama’s base if it were reported that “all of the males old enough to hold a rifle have been killed in a recent drone strike” in each news piece about the latest place the President has taken upon himself to wage illegal, unConstitutional and unjust war. This state propaganda failing to report that an American President is ordering the deaths of innocent civilians falsely lowers the number of collateral damage deaths the public hears about.

But the people of Pakistan are well aware of the innocent death toll; for every “militant” Obama kills in their country, the number of Pakistanis willing to take up arms against the United States grows.

It has been reported that the President decides who lives and who dies with a set of baseball card-like terrorist profiles. Each gives names, ages, brief biographies and suspected activities, according to The New York Times. Some people have pondered the possibility that Obama is so fond of picking off suspected terrorists with drones because it eliminates the complications of detention, thereby taking focus away from the President’s failed promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

As revealed by the killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son in Yemen, American citizens are also subject to assassination by the government when they appear on Obama’s “militant” cards.

While all of these occurrences have taken place in far-off lands where the average American does not witness the atrocities of Obama’s drone “war” firsthand, it is becoming increasingly evident that the U.S. government is doing what it can to bring drone strikes and “militant” killings to the homeland.

The National Defense Authorization Act that Obama signed into law earlier this year effectively removes Americans’ expectation to fair trial and provides the Federal government the right to detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they are expected of being, or working with, terrorists. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has spent the past several years making it possible to label almost any activity as suspect terrorism, and the FBI has spent its time creating domestic terrorists out of thin air.

Using the fear that it has been able to put into the hearts of the American populace with manufactured domestic terror, the Federal government has convinced the Nation to accept drones over domestic skies. They are already being used for law enforcement and border patrol, and some people believe they will likely become more and more heavily armed in the next few years. Is it only a matter of time before Americans hear about drone strikes killing groups of “militants” in remote parts of the United States?

Denver-based author and radio host David Sirota seems to think that it may happen sooner than later. He used the White House’s “We the People” online petition application to create a petition for the government to create a “Do Not Kill List” in response to Obama’s lengthy kill list.

The petition reads:

The New York Times reports that President Obama has created an official “kill list” that he uses to personally order the assassination of American citizens. Considering that the government already has a “Do Not Call” list and a “No Fly” list, we hereby request that the White House create a “Do Not Kill” list in which American citizens can sign up to avoid being put on the president’s “kill list” and therefore avoid being executed without indictment, judge, jury, trial or due process of law.

At the time of this report, the petition had 2,065 of the 22,935 required signatures to be reviewed by the Administration. You can view or sign it here.

The Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s Kill List : Personal Liberty Alerts=

The Breightbart list is growing ... nothing more than a political hit list

The Moral Challenge of ‘Kill Lists’

by Ray McGovern
Global Research, June 4, 2012

Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has been called President Obama’s “priest” as they wrestle with the moral dilemma of assembling a “kill list” of “bad guys,” a role that recalls how established religions have justified slaughters over the centuries, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

In an extraordinary article in Tuesday’s New York Times, “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will,” authors Jo Becker and Scott Shane throw macabre light on the consigliere-cum-priestly role that counterterrorist adviser John Brennan provides President Barack Obama.

At the outset, Becker and Shane note that, although Obama vowed to “align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values,” he has now ordered the obedient Brennan to prepare a top secret “nominations” list of people whom the President may decide to order killed, without charge or trial, including American citizens.
Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who would become Pope Pius XII (seated, center), at the signing of the Reichskonkordat with Adolf Hitler's Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen on July 20,1933, in Rome.

The authors understate this as “a moral and legal conundrum.” It is, in fact, a moral and legal impossibility to square “kill lists” for extrajudicial murders with traditional legal and moral American values.

Enter the legal consiglieres. Attorney General Eric Holder and Harold Koh, the State Department’s top lawyer, seem to have adopted the retro (pre-1215) practices of their immediate predecessors (think Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey) with their extraordinary ability to make just about anything “legal.”

Even torture? No problem for the earlier trio. Was not George W. Bush well-armed with the perfect squelch, when NBC’s Matt Lauer asked him about waterboarding in November 2010?

Lauer: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

Bush: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the anti-torture act. I’m not a lawyer. But you gotta trust the judgment of the people around you, and I do.

So there! You gotta trust those lawyers. The legal issue taken care of – though early in his presidency, Bush had ridiculed other lawyers who thought international law should apply to him. “International law?” he asked in mock fear. “I better call my lawyer.” He surely knew his lawyer would tell him what he wanted to hear.

The Moral
President Obama has adopted a similar attitude toward the moral conundrum of targeted killings around the world. Just turn to Consigliere John Brennan for some “just war” theorizing. We have it from Harold Koh that Brennan is “a person of genuine moral rectitude. … It’s as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war.”

So, like the Caesars of old or the generals of World War I, Obama consults a priest or minister before having folks killed. And in this case the “priest” is Brennan, “whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the President’s attempt to apply the ‘just war’ theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict,” write Becker and Shane.

If, as the New York Times writers claim, President Obama is a student of the writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he seems to be getting very warped exegesis from Brennan.

Cameron Munter, Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, is just one who seems inadequately schooled in those theories. According to Becker and Shane, Munter has complained to his colleagues that the CIA’s strikes are driving American policy in Pakistan, saying, “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people.”
Western news reports have Munter leaving his post this summer, after less than two years — an ambassador’s typical tenure.

Bellying-Up
Now, don’t “mis-underestimate” John Brennan. His heart is in the right place, we’re told. The authors quote him as insisting, “The President, and I think all of us here, don’t like the fact that people have to die.” Yes, it really is too bad, don’t you know; but, hey, sometimes you just have to belly-up to the really tough decisions.

In Brennan’s and Obama’s world, some suspects just have to die, partly because they seem to look/act like “militants,” and partly because it is infeasible to capture them (while unprecedentedly easy, and safe, to kill them — by missiles from drones).

Thus far, the words of today’s Gospel by post-9/11 “Christian philosophers.” No doubt, these “just war” enthusiasts would brand hopelessly naïve, or “quaint-and-obsolete,” the words seen recently on a bumper sticker: “When Jesus told us to love our enemies, I think he probably meant not to kill them.”
Not one of the thousand cars driving onto the Bronx campus of Fordham University for commencement on May 19 was sporting that bumper sticker, nor was there any attention given to the general concept at commencement.

That kind of thinking was hardly welcome that day at the “Jesuit University of New York City,” after the Jesuits and their trustees decided to give Brennan the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa, and asked him to give the commencement address.

Several of the Fordham graduates, though, did take the trouble to learn more about Brennan’s role in “war-on-terror” practices like kidnapping, torture, black-site prisons, illegal eavesdropping on Americans, and extrajudicial murder by drone. They found it preposterous that Obama would seek “priestly” advice from Brennan. At commencement, they orchestrated some imaginative protests.

Fordham and the Prestige Virus
Fordham is the college that blessed the “priest” that blessed the president that killed from a list compiled in a White House that slaves built. And looking on silently from his commencement seat of honor atop the steps to Fordham’s Keating Hall was fellow honorary doctorate awardee, “pro-life” Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York and head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I wonder if it occurred to Dolan that from these same steps an honorary degree was conferred in 1936 on Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, author of the Vatican’s Concordat with Nazi Germany. Later, as Pope Pius XII, Pacelli could not find his voice to speak out forcefully against the wars and other abuses of the Third Reich, including genocide against the Jews.

So too, the new archbishop of New York and his fellow bishops cannot find their voice on the transcendent issues of aggressive war and its accumulated evil, preferring to focus on pelvic issues.

A few summers ago, I spent a couple of hours in Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in West Jerusalem. Decades earlier while serving in Germany, I had made it a custom to devote the last day of a visitor’s stay to Dachau, the first concentration camp, established in 1933.

At the end of the barracks at Dachau stands the famous caution from Santayana, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to relive it.” That dictum kept racing through my mind as past and present merged on the walls of Yad Vashem, mocking the ubiquitous “Never Again.”

There were parallels that stood stark naked for any thinking American to see: parallels between Hitler’s success in grabbing dictatorial power in Germany — largely because of a supine Parliament, an acquiescent Church, a careerist Army leadership, and a fearful populace — and the situation we Americans face today with “kill lists,” unconstitutional “laws,” and Gestapo-style police armed to the teeth.

Pledging Allegiance
There they were in photos on the walls. It was 1934, and the German Army generals were in the limelight swearing allegiance to Hitler — not the German Constitution (what was left of it); the German Supreme Court swearing allegiance to Hitler — not to the law and Constitution; and, not least, the Reich’s bishops swearing allegiance to Hitler — not to God and the people they were supposed to serve.

I noticed that one of the English-speaking guides pointed to the generals and jurists but avoided mentioning the bishops, so I insisted he make full disclosure. (It occurred to me that Hitler might have been stymied, had the Catholic and Lutheran bishops been able to find their voice.)
On an adjacent wall was the Hamlet-like Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, trying to make up his mind on whether he should put the Catholic Church at risk, while Jews were being murdered by the train-full.

The most compelling story was that of Imre Bathory, a Hungarian who, like many other Hungarians, put their own lives at grave peril by trying to save fugitive Jews. Asked to explain, Bathory said that because of his actions:

“I know that when I stand before God on Judgment Day, I shall not be asked the question posed to Cain; ‘Where were you when your brother’s blood was crying out to God?’”

At Fordham’s commencement, one would have taken considerable risk in alluding to the crying-out blood of Iraqis and Afghans. Only happy, prideful talk is de rigueur on such occasions, together with honoring prominent people — with little heed paid to how they earned such prominence. A White House post suffices.

From the Grave, Albert Camus
In 1948, still under the dark cloud of what had been a disastrous world war, the French author/philosopher Albert Camus accepted an invitation to come to the Dominican Monastery of Latour-Maubourg.

To their credit, the Dominicans wanted to know what an “unbeliever” thought about Christians in the light of their behavior during the Thirties and Forties. Camus’s words seem so terribly relevant today that it is difficult to trim them down:

“For a long time during those frightful years I waited for a great voice to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew that the spirit would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation…

“It has been explained to me since, that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But that it was in the style of the encyclicals, which is not all that clear. The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood. Who could fail to feel where the true condemnation lies in this case?

“What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today.

“It may be … that Christianity will insist on maintaining a compromise, or else on giving its condemnations the obscure form of the encyclical. Possibly it will insist on losing once and for all the virtue of revolt and indignation that belonged to it long ago.

“What I know – and what sometimes creates a deep longing in me – is that if Christians made up their mind to it, millions of voices – millions, I say – throughout the world would be added to the appeal of a handful of isolated individuals, who, without any sort of affiliation, today intercede almost everywhere and ceaselessly for children and other people.” (Excerpted from Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays)

It may be that the Dominican monks took Camus seriously; monks tend to listen. Vatican functionaries, on the other hand, tend to know it all, and to urge pope, cardinals and bishops to be highly “discreet” in what they say and do.

Help From the Outside
Sometimes it takes a truth-telling outsider to throw light on our moral failures.
South African Methodist Bishop Peter Storey, erstwhile chaplain to Nelson Mandela in prison and outspoken opponent of Apartheid, has this to say to the platitude-inclined, patriotism-preaching American clergy in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks:

“We had obvious evils to engage; you have to unwrap your culture from years of red, white and blue myth. You have to expose and confront the great disconnect between the kindness, compassion and caring of most American people and the ruthless way American power is experienced, directly or indirectly, by the poor of the earth.

“You have to help good people see how they have let their institutions do their sinning for them. All around the world there are those who long to see your human goodness translated into a different, more compassionate way of relating with the rest of this bleeding planet.”

Albert Camus and Peter Storey are among the true prophets of our time. I think the late Madeleine L’Engle also had it right when she wrote:
“I think if we speak the truth and are not afraid to be disagreed with, we can make big changes.” The biggest obstacle is often within us, she observes. “We get so frightful.”

In A Stone for a Pillow: L’Engle adds:

“The true prophet seldom predicts the future. The true prophet warns us of our present hardness of heart, our prideful presuming to know God’s mind.

“We must be careful … that we are not being false prophets fearing only for our own selves, our own families, our own country. Our concern must be for everybody, for our entire fragile planet, and everybody on it. …


“Indeed, we must protest with loving concern for the entire universe. A mark of the true prophet in any age is humility. … And the final test of the true prophet is love.”

After ten years of ecclesiastical silence regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a cop-out — pure and simple — to expect the leaders of the institutional “Christian” churches in the United States to act any differently from the way the German churches did during the Thirties in Germany.


Americans can no longer in good conscience expect bold action for true justice from the largely domesticated clergy; nor can we use that feckless expectation as an excuse to do nothing ourselves. As theologian Annie Dillard has put it: “There is only us; there never has been any other.”

And, she might have added, we don’t do “kill lists.”

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served thirty years as an Army officer and CIA intelligence analyst; he holds an M.A. in Russian from Fordham and a Certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University.

The Moral Challenge of ‘Kill Lists’

Senate Democrats blast national security leak on Iran cyber-attack
By Jeremy Herb - 06/05/12 03:02 PM ET

The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday expressed worry that leaks to press about a cyber attack on Iran authorized by the Obama administration could lead to a counter-attack on the U.S.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined other senior Senate Democrats in expressing serious concerns about the leak, which detailed a cyber attack intended to harm Iran's nuclear program. Some Republicans argue the information was leaked to help President Obama's re-election campaign.

Feinstein said the fact that the U.S. is launching cyber attacks against other countries could “to some extent” provide justification for cyberattacks against the U.S.

“This is like an avalanche. It is very detrimental and candidly, I found it very concerning,” Feinstein told reporters Tuesday. “There’s no question that this kind of thing hurts our country.”

Several Democrats noted the Iranian cyber leak is just the latest in a series of media reports about classified U.S. anti-terrorism activity.

“A number of those leaks, and others in the last months about drone activities and other activities are frankly all against national security interests,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “I think they’re dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America.”

Feinstein and Kerry, however, rejected Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) charge that the leaks were politically motivated to boost President Obama’s image.

Kerry said that he “categorically” rejected the accusations that the leaks were coming from the White House for politically purposes.

And Feinstein said she did not think the White House leaked the cyber story for political purposes.

“That’s hard for me to believe,” she said.
A story in last week’s New York Times revealed U.S. involvement with the Stuxnet virus, a computer virus that was used against Iranian nuclear facilities and caused centrifuges to explode. The story detailed joint U.S. and Israeli efforts to develop the virus as well as conversations Obama had with his advisors on whether to continue the program when the virus became public in 2010. The story cited unnamed current and former U.S., Israeli and European officials.

McCain accused the White House of leaking the story for political purposes, a charge he continued to make on Tuesday as he has called for an investigation into the leak.

McCain and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) are planning a colloquy on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Stuxnet story, a McCain aide confirmed.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that he had serious concerns about the cyberattack story going public, but said he didn’t know where the leaks came from.

“I just can’t believe that there’s a decision in any kind of a formal way to leak this kind of a thing,” Levin said. “I just cannot believe that.”

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, called for an independent investigation into the leaks on Tuesday.

Asked if he thought there was a political side to the leaks, Lieberman told The Hill he did not know. “The mere fact that people suspect it is means that it ought to be investigated,” he said.

Senate Democrats blast national security leak on Iran cyber-attack - The Hill's DEFCON Hill



They don't like their activities coming home to roost...I guess...

The Secret Kill List
by Andrew P. Napolitano, May 31, 2012
Print This | Share This

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed, and then dispatches killers all over the world — and some of his killers have killed Americans.

We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own — and not the military after congressional authorization — to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn’t want to talk about this, but he doesn’t deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod — the president’s campaign manager — has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?

Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.

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 and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.

The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here — no matter his intentions — poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain 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 circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet.

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pickup trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers’ arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM.



The Secret Kill List by Andrew P. Napolitano -- Antiwar.com



Monday, June 4, 2012
The Killer Elite Hit List
SARTRE, Contributor
Activist Post

The notorious Nixon hit list seems so placid when compared to the actual lethal force used by President Barack Obama, that one wonders how long it will be before the drone fleet turns their target munitions inside our own borders.

The recent disclosure that Barry Soetoro, AKA, Barack Hussein Obama pours over a master list of threats against the establishment regime and picks the most dangerous candidates for surgical removal, demonstrates the care and precision used against "certified terrorists".

Such is the latest method of keeping the institutions of the "Homeland" safe from nasty combatants that challenge the officially recognized empire.

That bastion barrister of the rule of law, Eric Holder, clarifies the actions of the POTUS dictatorship.

"Speaking to an audience at Northwestern University Law School, Holder gave the most complete explanation to date of the Obama administration's legal rationale for killing people such as American-born Anwar Awlaki, who was targeted in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen last year.

Such killings can be ordered "in full accordance with the Constitution," but it requires "at least" an imminent threat in a situation where capture is not feasible, and when the strike is "conducted in a manner consistent" with the rules of war, Holder said.

"In this hour of danger," Holder said, "we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out. And we will not."


Contrast the viewpoint of the Attorney General with that of the esteemed jurist, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in the essay The Secret Kill List.

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 and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days."

The predicament for the administration deepens with every attempt to uphold a failed foreign policy and a breach of basic bedrock constitutional protections.

Toady proponents claim that Obama is a master speech deliverer, reading from a script of a grand design.

Like another psychopath, skilled in rallying his sycophant supporters, Obama lacks a deep understanding of the repugnance in the rhetoric from the inconsistencies of the deeds.

In an article, Obama Doesn’t Know Why He’s Entitled to Kill Al-Awlaki, He Just Is, Damnit, poses a serious question about the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

The most striking aspect of the government’s motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit challenging the use of targeted killing is that the government does not commit to the basis for its authority to kill an American citizen like Anwar al-Awlaki with no review.

This starts as soon as the filing tries to lay the ground work for unchecked authority under the AUMF. It doesn’t commit to whether Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is part of al Qaeda itself, or is instead just closely enough associated to count under the AUMF.

The United States has further determined that AQAP is an organized armed group that is either part of al-Qaeda, or is an associated force, or cobelligerent, of al-Qaeda that has directed armed attacks against the United States in the noninternational armed conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda that the Supreme Court recognized in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 628-31 (2006).

Furthermore, as noted above, the Executive Branch has determined that AQAP is an organized armed group that is either part of al-Qaeda or, alternatively, is an organized associated force, or cobelligerent, of al-Qaeda that has directed attacks against the United States in the noninternational armed conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda that the Supreme Court has recognized (see Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 628-31).

Note the conclusion within this assessment:

Though note the gigantic slip here: the AUMF only declares war against those 'those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons' (when AQAP didn’t exist in its current form), not those who have attacked us since. This 'either/or' statement only claims that AQAP is part of the same war, not that it had any role in 9/11, so it’s totally bogus in any case, even without the betrayal of their lack of confidence in both of these claims with the either/or construction.

Even under this tortured rationalization to fashion an argument that twists legal language, the depths of decadence to maintain the false flag justification for the terrorism fantasy says more about how far America has fallen than an actual threat to the nation.

Now that the droning of America has ramped up the mission for the total surveillance society, how long will it be before the "rules of war" apply within our own borders? The dire prospects of a second term Obama presidency loom over the skies with an ominous cloud.

Barack Obama’s actions are reminiscent of the arrogance and brutality of his Chicago criminal syndicate mentors. German propaganda equated the "Chicago Typewriter" Tommy-gun style of brute force as proof of the real methods of the power elite.

During the 1930s the Nazi hierarchy became obsessed with sensational reports of the Chicago gangsters, Al Capone and his ilk. So when the Reichsminister of Propaganda wanted to demonize the British and American air forces, he combined the German word Luft (air) with 'gangsters' and thus we were portrayed in the German press. Just as we laughed at the Nazi propaganda tools, Lord Haw Haw and Axis Sally, and enjoyed the music they beamed at us (remember Lili Marlene?) so we reveled in the title of Luftgangster.

While the drone fleet analogy applies and Obama’s grandiose skills resemble the pomposity of the Führer, he really is a closet Joseph Stalin at heart. The Obama File describes him in this manner.

But Obama is not just a Marxist. He's a unique hybrid. He's a Marxist for sure, but he's also a professional activist, completely in tune with the American Political Left and the goals of the Socialist International. He spent years teaching the US Constitution, but he certainly wasn't teaching constitutional law from a strict constructionist point of view.

For an in-depth resource on Obama’s communists sympathies and ties, examine the commieblaster site. The basic lesson is that both Hitler and Stalin were twins in depravity. Both had their own "Kill Lists" and together caused the deaths of millions of innocent citizens within their own countries.

The Statist-Fascism that is engulfing America is all around us. The masses that goose stepped over the cliff or cried at "Uncle Joe’s" funeral were not real patriots, but were fools.

Americans who are "Stuck On Stupid" and refuse to admit that the entire 911War of Terror is a manufactured excuse to militarize our own version of a police state, bear the shame and blame for the end of the Republic.

Currently the latest Bilderberg confluence is plotting and implementing efforts and policies that will result in your demise. The "Killer Elite" is just as much a culture as a squad of hired assassins. The drone deployment of the military domestically is a clear violation of Posse Comitatus. The rule of law has been abandoned, and replaced with the reign of tyrants.

A comprehensive hit list, compiled nationwide, is growing because moral patriots are becoming more active and forthright in confronting an illegal government. For the rest of the sedated zombies that still believe that the federal despotism is legitimate, the buzzing of spies in the skies will become a reminder that every action is now subject to scrutiny.

Many will exhort the elimination of Anwar Awlaki. But, will they still cheer when the lightening bolts start to rain down inside their own country? Ignoring due process out of a phony and trumped-up pretext means that anyone and everyone is subject to arbitrary liquidation if the killer elites decide you are a threat to their New World Order.

Domestic surveillance, designed for a sinister purpose, has dangerous implications. Obama’s Chicago gang of gangsters and their integration into the military-industrial-security complex may well prove the ranting of Lord Haw Haw correct. If Nazism and Communism were the two great evils of the last century, how do you explain that our federal government is in the final stages of adopting the worst of both systems?

It is just a matter of time until you are slated for a place in a FEMA facility. Or, maybe, if you have tremendous courage, make the next cut for Obama’s hit list. America is in peril from within and flying the friendly drone skies does not make us safe.




Original article archived here with additional images
The Killer Elite Hit List


SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact batr@batr.org


Activist Post: The Killer Elite Hit List


The Moral Challenge of ‘Kill Lists’, there is nothing moral about it!!!!

Obama's kill list. This is, in my opinion a national disgrace.


Warning this is a very graphic violent video that shows severe injuries to children

OBAMA'S DRONES WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN!




Obama's political career and presidency has been funded by money raised by the progressive left. Tides, Joyce,media matters, move on.org etc. all organizations funded by and old man that got his start by fingering Jews in Germany to sent to the death camps and looting their belongings

Is this what the Progressive's support?

This article below justifies the drone attacks and is printed by a MSM newspaper The McClatchy-Tribune News Service. This editorial tries to justify the use of Predator Drones on civilians. So much for the human rights dialogue and the "we must take care of the children" rhetoric. This is not the way I want my country to act in and undeclared war. So far, I still have the right to my opinion.

Drone attacks remain best tool to fight terrorists

Published: June 25, 2012

McClatchy-Tribune News Service

The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday, June 22:
The United States has been at war with a shadowy, elusive enemy for more than a decade. It is a war without borders and front lines, fought by an enemy that hides behind civilian populations and in dark corners. The terrorist group al-Qaida carried out an infamous and devastating attack on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been plotting attacks ever since; its members would love to repeat that success. It is only through the vigilance, courage and successful tactics of the men and women in the U.S. armed forces and intelligence services that those plots have been thwarted.

A key weapon in that fight has been the drone, a pilotless craft that can be sent against a very specific target and eliminate it without risk to U.S. forces. The drone again proved its value in this twilight struggle when, earlier this month, a drone strike killed al-Qaida's No. 2 leader at a house in northern Pakistan. Abu Yahya al-Libi was the sixth top al-Qaida leader killed in Pakistan and Yemen over the past year. That success has devastated the terrorist group and no doubt saved the lives of innocents. It is the best argument for continuing the drone attacks.
But the drone itself has come under attack, and its frequent use by the Obama administration has become controversial. Critics say it is responsible for the deaths of nearby civilians, that it creates more new enemies than it kills and that the attacks are targeted too broadly.

Those criticisms have some validity. There have been too many civilian deaths. Taking out a terrorist leader and his guards is one thing; targeting the funeral procession for that leader is quite another. While such an attack will kill more supporters of that leader, it is also likely to kill innocent civilians, including children. Aside from the moral implications, that does create new enemies.

Robert Grenier, who headed the CIA's counterterrorism center from 2004 to 2006, told the British newspaper the Guardian that the attacks are too broadly targeted. He emphasized that the attacks need to be "targeted much more finely" and against specific identified targets who have been tracked and monitored to a place where a strike is feasible. He's right; identifying all military-age males in a strike zone as militants, as the administration has been accused of doing, is far too broad.

The Obama administration, which has used drones far more extensively than its predecessor, also needs to address issues of rules of engagement and how much the president should be involved in the selection of targets. And an international debate leading to international rules on the use of drones is also warranted. The U.S. is not the only country with this technology, and it is setting precedents for their future use.

If it's OK for use in other countries' sovereign territory against terrorist groups, what about use against dissidents in other countries? Sometimes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

But while some changes in policy and more discussion are certainly warranted, the drones remain a most effective and precise weapon - certainly more precise than anything else the U.S. now has at its disposal to target terrorists. Using other weapons would mean even more civilian and U.S. casualties. And doing nothing against a foe as implacable as al-Qaida is not an option.

By all means, have that debate, but until al-Qaida is effectively destroyed, drones remain the best tool in the tool shed.

Drone attacks remain best tool to fight terrorists | Other Opinions | Bradenton Herald

Bet they are Christians ....and it is "extremely" graphic.

bttt

http://www.alipac.us/f9/first-2-obam...inated-270168/