The Drone Ranger
The Droning of Americans
Since 2009, Obama's minions, through aerial assaults also have killed three U.S. citizens as well as countless of innocent civilians in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama's actions begs the question as to whether the president has the right to order the death of Americans without due process of law. One of those controversial and well publicized drone attacks involved the killing of Anwar al-Awalki. He was an American citizen and, at the same time, a radical Muslim cleric who had relocated his family to Yemen. He was rumored to be involved in repeated attempts to attack the U.S., including the Christmas day underwear bomber plot in 2009 that would have blown up a passenger jet over Detroit. The murder of Anwar al-Awalki was committed without any due process of law. Also killed as the result of a drone attack was American citizen, Samir Khan. He was the editor of “Inspire,” an alleged al Qaeda ‘s online magazine. Kahn was never accused of participating in, or being involved with the planning of any terrorist activity. And since when has it been a criminal offense to be involved in al Qaeda, since we used their assets to attack Libya and have involved members of this organization in trying overthrow Syria's Assad. Two weeks later, after the death of his father, in a separate drone attack, al-Awalki’s 16-year-old son, who was born in Denver was murdered by a drone. If these three individuals were involved in terrorist activity, then they should have been arrested and tried for their crimes. Instead, our communist-in-chief, decides on his own authority to murder these three Americans without any due process of law.The Government Plans to Murder More Americans Without Due Process
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” The memo makes it clear that these lethal attacks can be carried out even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. And since when are intelligence reports considered to be proof of guilt or innocence? The Justice Department's use of the term "associated force" is particularity troubling. Who or what could be considered an associated force? The Justice Department memo is silent on this point. Since dissent is being considered to be an act of terrorism by many government officials, could this mean that an associated force could simply mean that anyone who disagrees with the government is a legitimate target for a drone attack?
Surprisingly, the corporate-controlled media network, NBC, produced a very interesting interpretation of these facts.
Comments
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment