My topic for this evening is “now, it’s assassinations”. What have
we allowed ourselves to become? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Have we become instead a nation of men who make
secret arrests? Are secret prisons now simply another tool of the federal government law enforcement? Is secret
rendition of individuals now permitted out of misplaced fear? Have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not
worth defending? Is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe?
Unfortunately, the single answer to all these questions from the
leaders of our country to many of our citizens appears to be yes. And now we are told that assassination of
foreigners as well as American citizens is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. It is my
firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.
Secret arrests, secret renditions, torture and assassinations are
illegal under both domestic and international law. These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a
constitutional republic. The real threat doesn’t arise from our failure to torture, rather desensitizing our nation
to the willful neglect and sacrifice of our civil liberties fought and died for over the centuries, is the
A local Fox News journalist (again!) came off
sounding more like an Infowars reporter than a mainstream mouthpiece when he confronted Obama regarding his “kill list.”
Reporter Ben Swann was on the floor of the Democratic National Convention Tuesday and was able to procure an
exclusive interview with Mr. Soetoro.
Specifically, Swann asked how the “president” can justify the killing of Americans without trial, as has been
revealed through leaks of a kill list.
Swann’s passion for the truth seems genuine. In July, we covered a report Swann produced questioning the official narrative of the ‘Dark
Knight’ massacre. Here is an excerpt from that report:
It’s astounding to watch the mainstream media being forced to behave like alternative media outlets which
the establishment previously derided as “conspiracy theorists” in an attempt to remain relevant, but kudos to
Fox 19 for at least making the effort to ask the hard questions.
Once again, kudos Mr. Swann.
Obama Admin. Trying To Decide Whether To
Assassinate Another U.S. Citizen Overseas
The U.S. government is once again considering whether or not to use a drone strike to
assassinate a u.s. citizen living overseas who is suspected of terrorism. Watch the video to see why Ben says
despite the appearance of a NEW drone strike policy... nothing has actually changed.
A former Marine Corps Colonel who was stationed
in Fallujah and trained Iraqi soldiers warns that the Department of Homeland Security is working with law
enforcement to build a “domestic army,” because the federal government is afraid of its own citizens.
In this exclusive in studio interview Ret. Col Martino covers the DHS buildup and solutions our overreaching
corrupt government officials.
“People in general just will NOT,
take their heads out of the sand!”
Psyops, or psychological operations, is a term used to describe the
techniques of psychological manipulation used in warfare. These operations are used to deceive, confuse, disrupt
and demoralize the enemy, with an aim toward weakening enemy resistance or even causing enemy forces to surrender
and enemy populations to capitulate.
Two American journalists are working together to expose
the role of the US National Security Agency in what they described as a “US assassination program.”
2 journalists team up to report NSA role in "US
Two well-known American journalists team up to expose the role of the U-S government's
main surveillance agency in Washington's assassination program.
Rio-based journalist Glenn Greenwald says he's now working with Jeremy Scahill on a project that reveals the
significant and central role of the N-S-A in the program. Greenwald says there are still so many stories that are
yet to be published. Scahill, who is the New York Times best-selling author of "Dirty Wars", says the Obama
administration has launched an unprecedented war on journalists under the pretext of fighting
Contributor to The Nation magazine Jeremy Scahill and
Rio-based journalist Glenn Greenwald are working on the project.
“The connections between war and surveillance are clear. I don’t want to give too much away but Glenn and I are
working on a project right now that has at its center how the National Security Agency plays a significant, central
role in the US assassination program,” Scahill said on Saturday.
“There are so many stories that are yet to be published that we hope will produce ‘actionable intelligence,’ or
information that ordinary citizens across the world can use to try to fight for change, to try to confront those in
power,” he added.
Greenwald was the first journalist who broke the revelations about US spying programs based on documents leaked
by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
“The really important thing to realize is the desire for surveillance is not a uniquely American attribute,”
Greenwald was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
“America has just devoted way more money and way more resources than anyone else to spying on the world,” he
Greenwald also praised discussions by some South American governments to find ways to circumvent American
control over the Internet.
“But I think it’s also very important to keep in mind that whenever governments, be it the US government or the
Brazilian government or anybody else, starts talking about regulating the Internet, even when they tell you it’s
designed to protect your privacy from the American government . There is also the danger that the Brazilian
government or any other government or international institution will want to simply replace the United States as
the entity that is monitoring your communications,” he said.
Court documents have shown that the NSA violated privacy rules for years with its surveillance practices.
The documents released over the past few months reveal a troubling picture of a super spy agency that has sought
and won far-reaching surveillance powers to run complex domestic data collection without anyone having full
technical understanding of the process.
The privacy violations were first revealed by Snowden in June. He leaked confidential information that showed
the NSA collects data of phone records and Internet communication of American citizens.
This article was posted: Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 5:47 am
Abdurlrahman Al awlaki son of
Shaikh Anwar al awlaki killed by US
Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki, a 16 year old Yemeni-American boy who was murdered on the Yemeni
soil by an American drone strike on Friday 14/10/2011 with the help of The Yemeni government just 15 days after the
death of his father Anwar Al-Awlaki by another American drone on Friday 30/09/2011.......Abdulrahman was killed
along with his cousin Ahmed Abdulrahman Ahmed only 16 years old in the same drone strike.
Abdulrahman who ran away from home to see his father whom was reported killed by a drone, only to be blown away by
another drone. His crime apparently was being Sheikh Anwar Al awlaki's son...
EXCLUSIVE Nasser al-Awlaki to
Why Did You Kill My U.S.-Born Son,
Grandson in Drone Strikes?
In a broadcast exclusive, Nasser al-Awkali
speaks out for the first time since the Obama administration confirmed drones had killed four U.S. citizens,
including his son, Anwar, and teenage grandson, Abdulrahman. The cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen on
Sept. 30, 2011. Anwar’s 16-year-old son was killed in another drone strike two weeks later. "If the United States
government gave me concrete evidence against Anwar, I would have done my best to convince Anwar to come to Sana’a
or to go even to the United States to face a trial. But it was only allegations," al-Awlaki says, noting he
believes the United States could have easily captured him alive. We also speak with Anwar’s uncle, Saleh bin
Fareed, a Yemeni sheikh and tribal leader. "I am sure I could have handed him over — me and my family — but they
never, ever asked us to do that," Fareed says. The story of the al-Awlakis is featured prominently in the new
documentary film opening today, "Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield," directed by Richard Rowley and written by
Jeremy Scahill and David Riker.
News: Americans In The Crosshairs
Paul to Obama: Don't Assassinate American Citizens!
Congressman Ron Paul warned on the House floor that the assassination of American citizens by
their own government is setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of us.
Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to
sound monetary policies.
Jonathan Turley CSPAN interview, Obama stated he can kill any American
Jonathan Turley CSPAN interview, Obama stated he can kill any American anywhere.
Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar, was interviewed on CSPAN.
He was asked by a Democrat caller about Obama's statement that he can kill any
According to the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The
Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is
the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.
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? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional
oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we
presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion
under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was
certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses.
They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional
protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of
life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law.
Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We
do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as
part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and
Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign
Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary – not even for
citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly
not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no
one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel
within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on
that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell
Al-Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal
representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the
administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect
of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations.
Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of
due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the
next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back.
Obama Orders Children
As Obama grandstands and uses the Sandy Hook crisis to, in the
words of Eric Holder "brainwash the public" that guns are bad and the cause of violent crime and misery, We
decided to show just a few of the documented cases of drone attacks that he personally ordered where children
were killed. Drone attack after drone attack you will see the real face of the Globalists. This man does not
care about children he cares about disarming the American people to bring in a totalitarian
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...
Document: Army Preparing to Use
Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilians” During “Full Scale Riots” in U.S.
Training manual outlines "sniper response" during crowd
by Paul Joseph Watson | August 18, 2014
A document released by the U.S. Army
details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in
a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.
The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard
now being called in to deal with the disorder, is an ominous coincidence.
The 132-page document, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil
Disturbances (PDF), was written in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence.
The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside
and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where
it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”
The training manual outlines scenarios under
which, “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn
into full-scale riots.”
The most shocking aspect of the document is the fact that it describes the deployment of a “lethal
response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire.”
Under the heading “sniper response,” the document states, “Ensure that target leaders or
troublemakers are targeted,” in addition to a passage which states, “Exploit the psychological effect of an
Under the heading “small arms direct fire,”
the manual states, “Escalate gradually, starting with a small caliber, single round and work up to a large caliber,
Another graphic which depicts “escalation of trauma” directs soldiers how to use “riot batons” in
order to cause the necessary level of injury or death to the subject. “Deadly force final target areas” include the
back of the neck, the solar plexus, the neck, the spine and the head.
In light of events in Ferguson, where a
predominantly black community has faced off with militarized police, it’s interesting to note that the manual makes
reference to civil unrest that can arise out of “ethnic hatred” and, “Community unrest (that) results in urban
conflicts that arise from highly emotional social and economic issues.” The document also mentions how rioters
target “retail stores,” as happened during the looting in Ferguson.
“Significant ethnic differences in a community can create an atmosphere of distrust, even hatred……
(and) can cause an eruption of civil disorder that can lead to full riots,” states the document.
Although the document makes reference to the Constitutional rights of American citizens it goes on
to stress that such protections are null and void under a state of emergency, asserting that Posse Comitatus, which
is supposed to limit the power of the federal government to use military personnel domestically, “does not apply”
under declared “emergency authority” or “When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions
It is important to stress that this training manual applies to U.S. Army operations in foreign
countries as well as domestically on U.S. soil. Indeed, section 2-18 of the document goes into detail about
domestic protests such as the 1999 anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle.
The emergence of the document as National Guard troops prepare to descend on Ferguson, Missouri to
deal with looting and civil unrest follows a report we published
just a few weeks before the outbreak of the Ferguson riots which documented how National Guard troops were
training to detain unruly African-American citizens in prison camps before handing them over to police.
In a special video report, Alex Jones documented how the story was part of wider preparations by
the government for domestic disorder that have been ongoing for years.
We have reported previously on similar documents that outline how the U.S. Army would be forced to
resort to lethal measures in order to deal with unruly Americans during times of emergency within the United
In 2012 we
coveredFM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations, a U.S. Army manual that describes how
political activists in prison camps will be indoctrinated by specially assigned psychological operations officers.
The document makes numerous references to how government agencies like the DHS, ICE and FEMA will be involved in
the domestic internment of U.S. citizens during “civil support operations.”
A second US
Army Military Police manual that was leaked months later also outlined how military assets would be used
domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to
reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt.
Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.
Rex 84, short for
Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the
During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive
“scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign
military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens
determined by the government to be “national security threats.”
Documentary filmmaker spills the
beans on Obama’s secretive drone program
July 16, 2013
Documentarian, author and journalist Jeremy Scahill
appeared on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report Monday night attempting to communicate a few of the lesser-known
details surrounding the Obama administration’s secretive drone warfare campaign, at one point even shocking the
boisterous cable host into sober seriousness.
The seasoned satirist got off to a cynical start, introducing Scahill to the audience by saying, “It’s an honor
to be the last man to see him alive.”
Scahill, a national security correspondent for The Nation
magazine and producer of the 2013 documentary Dirty Wars, has been on the ground and experienced first hand the
devastation wrought by U.S. drones upon innocent civilians in places like Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen where he
says the Obama administration is killing people indiscriminately in covert, undeclared wars.
“We’re doing night raids, drone strikes, cruise missile attacks. We’re killing a tremendous number of innocent
civilians and we’re killing people whose identities we don’t even know,” Scahill told Colbert talking about a
secret war being conducted in Afghanistan being concealed by a larger, more public war.
“What do you mean, we’re killing a bunch of innocent [people]?,” Colbert asked, befuddled. “I haven’t heard much
“Well, I was on the ground in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia,” Scahill states, adding, “I went to villages where
for instance one of the first strikes President Obama authorized in Yemen killed 46 people. 14 of them were women,
21 were children. Who was the target in that action? The White House has not provided any information.”
One of the biggest problems with the unmanned drone program is that the number of strikes and people killed are
kept strictly confidential. In fact, not until earlier this year was there an actual confirmation by the government that such a program even existed. So much for the
“most transparent administration in history.”
Scahill elaborated, “We are doing pre-crime, like Minority Report, where we say if you’re a military-age male in
a certain region of these countries we’re gonna kill you and then later say that you were a terrorist without ever
providing any information that you actually were involved in a terror plot.”
Scahill is alluding to the Obama administration’s redefinition of the word “militant,” whose definition has been
transformed to mean “all military-age males in a strike zone.”
Former Salon and current Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald had this to say about the brazenly propagandized term: “By ‘militant,’
the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we
know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re
male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the
citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).”
The faux-conservative liberal next assumed a trademark liberal stance, claiming that if Scahill didn’t support
unmanned drones, he didn’t support the troops.
“In fact,” Scahill fired back, “you know they tried to make a medal for drone pilots and then it was rescinded by the Defense
Secretary because of outrage from the actual troops. So, the troops actually disagree with your position that a
drone is a troop.”
“So what’s your answer?” Colbert asked, seemingly interested.
“Well, I think first of all we can indict them and demand their extradition,” Scahill stated, referring to the
rule of law due process requirement that typically governs war scenarios.
Scahill then engaged in a debate about reported terrorist recruiter and motivator, not to mention confirmed Pentagon dinner guest, Anwar al-Awlaki who was born in New Mexico. “What [Obama]
did was he fast-forwarded to the death penalty without even indicting him.”
As Colbert proceeded to play devil’s advocate, Scahill – by this time genuinely disturbed – asked, “It doesn’t
trouble you that the President of the United States is asserting the right to kill American citizens without
presenting any actual evidence or indicting them at all?”
“Well, I’m not on the list,” Colbert flippantly stated.
Scahill remarked, “Well, how do you know?” eliciting a huge gasp from the audience.
“How do you get on the list?” asked Colbert cautiously, albeit comically.
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.
Privacy group petitioning government
on drone capability to identify armed individuals, intercept cell phones
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
“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
“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
“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
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.
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
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.
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
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”
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
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
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.
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).
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.
Stand With Rand : Rand Paul, Barak Obama, Drones, and
Presidential Kill Lists
For almost 13 hours on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) led a filibuster on the Senate
floor that called attention to the Obama administration's refusal to share its case for why the president can
target and kill U.S. citizens without oversight. Joined by about a dozen different colleagues throughout the event,
Paul hammered home questions surrounding positions advanced by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric
Holder, and Obama's nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. The entire filibuster is viewable at C-SPAN's
Here's a condensed version of the issues under debate, featuring Sen. Paul, President Obama, and actual drone
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.
Legal Loophole: White House Reserves Right to Homeland
Drone Strikes, Indefinite Detention
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
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
Today, former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald
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.
An independent agency of the United States government responsible for
collecting and coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national
interest; headed by the Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and
National Security Council...There has been considerable criticism of the CIA relating to security
and counterintelligence failures, failures in intelligence analysis, human rights concerns,
external investigations and document releases, influencing public opinion and law enforcement, drug
trafficking, and lying to Congress. In 1987, the former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, John
Stockwell, said the CIA is responsible for tens of thousands of covert actions and destablization
programs since it was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of
1947.At the time, Stockwell estimated that over 6
million people had died in CIA covert actions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency
belonging to the United StatesDepartment of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal
investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence). Also, it is the
government agency responsible for investigating crimes on Indian reservations in the United States
under the Major Crimes Act. The branch has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than
200 categories of federal crime. The agency was established in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation
(BOI). Its name was changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935. The agency
headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, located in Washington, D.C. The agency has fifty-six
field offices located in major cities throughout the United States, and more than 400 resident
agencies in lesser cities and areas across the nation. More than 50 international offices called
"legal attachés" exist in U.S. embassies and consulates general worldwide.
'Federal Bureau of Investigation organizes almost
all terror plots in the US' ...The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities
where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their
intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could
potentially carry out “lone wolf” attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By
providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling
participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully
Feds, contractors and police prepared to carry out death squad operations
Alex Jones and Julie Wilson
July 25, 2013
This document was obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Click on image to
In June, Infowars.com cited a report by WhoWhatWhy.com revealing that the “FBI was aware of an organization, possibly a local
police department or private security company, that had plans to assassinate peaceful protesters during the
The classified document released by the FBI read:
An identified [DELETED] as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors (sic) in
Houston, Texas if deemed necessary. An identified [DELETED] had received intelligence that indicated the
protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin,Texas.
[DELETED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then
formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.
“According to journalist David Lindorff, the FBI planned to assassinate the leaders of the now moribund Occupy
movement ‘via suppressed sniper rifles,” a follow up report by Kurt Nimmo confirmed.
The following is a transcript of Alex Jones spoken analysis:
It is essential to understand that information is being declassified on purpose, to create a chilling effect
against constitutionally protected activities like demonstrations and protests. But it’s also there to mainline the
idea that assassination/death squads are operating within America.
When you have the president signing the NDAA publicly saying we can kill, disappear Americans, we can
torture, we can do whatever we want, that can then be given to special forces, contractors and others who have
already been carrying out these types of seek-and-destroy operations in foreign countries.
So they believe it’s legal and lawful. In essence, this is the public roll-out, or testing of the waters. A
trial balloon for death squads to operate openly in America.
All of this in the name of “terrorism,” when the government itself has become the ultimate terrorists.
This is psychological warfare against police, the military and the general public. It is the mainlining, the
normalizing of the most barbarous, over-the-top, illegal activities that governments can engage in.
The open, premeditated plan to murder peaceful demonstrators on a scale that dwarfs Kent State protests.
This is a test to contractors, police, military and the feds–standby for your orders to kill.
This is how they’re creating an army of killers. The police need to know that this is a psyop aimed at them, to
see if they’ll carry out over-the-top evil.
We’re talking about a truly hijacked rogue government that’s done this clandestinely in the third world for over
What goes around, comes around.
America sat idly by while criminal elements used our government to carry out death squad operations, now it’s
Cops that don’t follow orders, get beat or sentenced to tax collecting, also known as meeting ticket quotas.
We focused in on the micro–how they’re manipulating the individual security services, let’s expand on the macro.
Once it becomes well known that there’s death squads operating it will create a chilling effect.
But it will also cause reprisals.
When somebody’s car blows up like Hastings’ in the future, people will know it was done by the system.
They won’t know who to target, but there will be reprisals.
Military veterans will target every major city with IEDs in the near future and are the number terror threat
according the DHS occupation forces.
The off the chart nature of this is what’s so genius. Tyrants that go over the top, tend to succeed more often
than tyrants that just move incrementally.
We’ve known for 5 years that DHS was shifting from Al-Qaeda to veterans and gun owners being the number one
terror threat. And now it’s just been normalized.
Now we’re being acclimated to the idea of sniper teams taking people out for exercising the first amendment. If
it worked for the Nazis and the Soviets, why not here?
Two days ago the House joined the NSA by endorsing illegal spying, which indicates the bottom has completely
fallen out of our republic.
The blackest stench of tyranny now spills fourth from the mah of hell. Every form of evil is being released from
its eon-old sleep to crawl openly upon the ground and devour our security, our wealth and our future.
They’re getting ready to push us into a civil war.
They’re getting ready to push the security services into confrontations with the American people, to start the
conflict that they’ve scripted.
Just like in Iraq they’ve pushed the Shiites off against the Sunnis. It’s pure divide and conquer, it’s
If observers ever want to know how the U.S. could be brought down, it would be from within, with this 21st
century type high-tech subterfuge.
This is it.
How can foreign banks steal tens of trillions of dollars of Americans’ money? Simple. Just say protesting banks
is an act of terrorism and kill everybody that dares to speak out.
The other so called Americans will just run in fear and endorse the oppression, thanks to mass Stockholm syndrome engineered into them from birth.
The powerful fiction film The Purge, is a near future window into the choices we have to make. See below.
How could there be aWar on Terror and actually say that we're having
awar against terrorism, and leave the
borders wide open? If you were the President of the United States, or I were the President of the United
States, and9/11 really happened
the way they want us to believe it happened, the first thing you would do is shut down the borders, so people
couldn't get in the country to harm you. But they left the borders wide open. Becausethe bankers want the borders open, because they
want aone-world government.
They want a North American Union. They don't want borders
here.9/11 was only a
manifestation. It was done to create afear in the American public, so that we
willobey what they want us to
In 1991, the Club published The First Global
Revolution. It analyses the problems of humanity, calling these collectively or in essence the 'problematique'.
It notes (laments) that, historically, social or political unity has commonly been motivated by enemies in
common: "The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome
domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when
things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation
together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the
disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as
scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing." "Every state has been so
used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries
has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new
strategies imagined, and new weapons devised."
THE GLOBALISTSMOVE FROM THEIRALQAEDA
CREATION,TO FABRICATING HOMEGROWN DOMESTIC
A failed attempt to recruit Aaron Russo resulted in
recent light being shed on the CFR...And The Fake War On
years ago, after his popular video “Mad As Hell” was released and Aaron Russo began his campaign to
become Governor of Nevada, Russo was noticed by Nicholas Rockefeller and introduced to him by a female
attorney. Seeing Russo’s passion and ability to affect change, Rockefeller set about on a subtle mission to
recruit Russo into the elite’s CFR. Watch the full interview here: Reflections and Warnings.
Aaron Russo talks about the CFR...And The Fake War On Terror!
Aaron Russo talks about the CFR...And The Fake War On
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was born in Russia, DECEMBER 11, 1918. He was arrested for writing a
letter criticizing Stalin and spent 11 years in labor camps. He began writing and eventually received the Nobel
Prize for Literature.
REACH OUT TO OTHERS
[Help Educate Family And Friends With This Page And The Links Below]