March 6, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter to Senator Rand Paul that states: “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.”
Holder explained to Paul that it is legal for US citizens to be murdered in a drone strike on American soil.
To answer Paul’s question of whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial”; Holder went on to assert that Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Holder went on to say: “[The Obama administration] reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”
However, Holder does acknowledge that “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.”
Holder postulated that “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 of a catastrophic attack. Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority.”
A leaked document from the Department of Justice (DoJ) revealed guidelines of the Obama administration’s legal reasoning for conducting targeted assassinations. The document asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.
Without the definitive threat of attack that could be construed as inevitable, the power of executive order is all that is needed to have a targeted assassination initiated.
The white paper includes redefinitions and expansions of self-defense and imminent attack with the ideology of a “broader concept of imminence” without the necessity of actual intelligence to support those assumptions. If the American is thought to be a threat to the US, they could become eligible of these targeted assassinations.
The document also states that Congress would be circumvented while Congressional committee’s intelligence could be considered classified legal advice which would justify the killing.
The Obama administration, through the DoJ, are attempting to create a legal explanation for their targeted assassinations of US citizens without proof of terroristic activities. Now they have it.
Armed with a secret kill-list and several US citizens already murdered by the US government.
According to anonymous sources, Obama has drawn up a guidebook that sets forth the circumstances by which targeted assassinations using drones can be carried out. This document seeks to justify the use of unmanned aircraft for the use of a CIA-operated targeted-killing program which is still officially classified.
The Obama administration is deciding whether or not drone killings should be the first response to terroristic suspicions in order to “help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territories.”
Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 6 national drone test sites were established to coincide with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement that by 2015 at least 30,000 drones will be in American skies surveying US citizens in the name of safety, according to Janet Napolitano.
DHS is requiring that Predator B drones be equip with surveillance capabilities that can determine if a human target is armed or not.
Through a solicitation posted in 2005, DHS initiated the process of obtaining drones to be specially equipped to become encompassing surveillance tools to use against the American people.
These specific drones are used to monitor US southern and northern borders; yet are now being utilizes by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Secret Service (SS), the Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement to identify citizens carrying firearms and tracking them through cell phone use.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GAAS) explain that DHS specified that these drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”; including “signals interception” technology that can syphon communications in frequency ranges used by cell phones, as well as “direction finding” technology that can pin-point the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
GAAS provide “tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems” to the US government. Their CLAW and LYNX technology collaborate “multi-mode radar” and “sensor payload control and image analysis software “to enhance surveillance and intelligence gathering that can be downloaded into “ultra-wideband data links for government applications.”
These drones are “capable of intercepting electronic communications . . . [and] the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.”Add This to Technorati Faves