Spy agencies can target Americans: official

Spy agencies can target Americans: official

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In unusually frank comments, the top U.S. intelligence official acknowledged on Wednesday that spy agencies can target for killing Americans who are involved in terrorism.

"We take direct action against terrorists, in the intelligence community," Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, said.

"If ... we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," he told the House (of Representatives) intelligence committee.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.commondreams.org

Blair did not mention where the permission came from

Does this surprise anybody? Apparently Blair's answer was so blunt it took the Congressman by surprise - and it probably would me as well.

This is another sign of the degradation of America. We know from the Harper's expose that black ops and intelligence agencies were carrying out secret executions of prisoners and covering them up as suicides, now we have the intelligence big wigs brazenly stating that they can and will kill American citizens if they are labelled "terrorists".

This is the country 9/11 made for us. We happily gave up our liberties in order to expand the power and influence of anti-terrorism agencies that are conveniently unaccountable to the people they are supposed to protect. How's that for preserving the American way?

The only time any government agency should end the life of an American citizen is when that citizen is in the immediate process of committing violence against other Americans. It is completely unacceptable any other way.

Haven't they learned that this is exactly what creates terrorism???

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So basically I sign their paychecks with my tax money and they get a license to kill?

Seems like I'm getting the crappy end of this particular deal!

edit:

Almost forgot. What is their definition of terrorism?

Who exactly can and will be labeled a terrorist? They could loophole their way to an ATS holocaust if they wanted to...

Who do these people answer to exactly?

How far are they really allowed to go?

Don't we have the right to get these particular details?

I'm pretty sure that the American people are on a "Need to Know" basis on this one!

[edit on 3-2-2010 by DaMod]

OF course they can. Theyve blinded the public to believe that terrorists are only "extremist muslims"...

Meanwhile, there are over 1 million on the terror watch list, all can be deemed terrorists, and killed.

I've seen local LEO busts where they categorize coc aine dealers and marijuana growers as "terrorists"....

It's wording, and brainwashing. If you # with the power, they will kill you - end.

"If ... we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," he told the House (of Representatives) intelligence committee.

Did I just read that if someone thinks there is a viability to kill then they go ahead?

Where's the due process?

Very confused and potentially outraged...

From the source

"I'm actually a little bit surprised you went this far in open session," Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra said.

Blair replied: "The reason I went this far in open session is I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering -- in fact we're not careless about endangering lives at all -- but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country."

Got to give Blair credit for saying this in an open session. Usually, this kind of thing would be discussed in closed sessions.

Blair pretty much let Americans know that if they join a terrorist group and try to hurt other Americans, they can and will be targeted.

Can't say Americans weren't warned.

Originally posted by jam321
From the source

"I'm actually a little bit surprised you went this far in open session," Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra said.

Blair replied: "The reason I went this far in open session is I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering -- in fact we're not careless about endangering lives at all -- but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country."

Got to give Blair credit for saying this in an open session. Usually, this kind of thing would be discussed in closed sessions.

Blair pretty much let Americans know that if they join a terrorist group and try to hurt other Americans, they can and will be targeted.

Can't say Americans weren't warned.

in theory, great idea.

sadly, who defines terrorist.

a muslim extremist willing to blow themselves up?

nah.

a terrorist in the US has been defined as anyone who questions authority, or TPTB.

that alone should scare the living daylight out of you...question the power/start a movement, be killed.

Originally posted by jam321
Can't say Americans weren't warned.

But where's the due process?

Someone's opinion can be biased...killing people on potential bias?

I can't believe that there is a clandestine admission to the potential murder of people...class system anyone?

reply to post by MemoryShock


Not to mention, now agents have an excuse to do what they want. And kill whomever they want.

I foresee a similar article in the future.

Mr. Multibillion dollar business owner who was due to bring up hard evidence against Barack Obama's business activities was killed today by united states officials. The investigation led them to believe that Mr. Miltibillion was affiliated with a Neo Nazi Islamic Voodo terrorist organization and therefore a kill on sight order was issued.

or..

A young man was shot and killed today by the Federal Bureau of Investigation today. He was labeled as a terrorist after government officials noticed he posted "I could kill them for this" on AboveTopSecret.com. This malicious post led officials to believe he was planning a strike on the United States Supreme court. Fortunately our beloved government officials are now allowed to kill people's labeled as "terrorists" for our protection.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by DaMod]

reply to post by SRHAZE420


From the article, it seems they are not just basing it on how terrorism is defined. We all know that terrorism/terrorist is broadly defined from agency to agency.

The article says that other things are considered.

From source

In making such decisions, "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans, those are the factors involved," Blair said.

I'm sure their are other factors included as well.

Oh, that Patriot Act. How it has pulled at the thread of the American flag.
This kinda stuff has always been true, they (TPTB) are just a little more cocky about it these days now that they've written laws around themselves. Black ops used to be kept in the dark, but now we can pretty much track them with our iPhones.

If you threaten THEM you are a terrorist and therefore expendable.

Oh great, according to some we here at ATS are terrorists.
Americas underground militias are terrorists.
If you stand up for your rights to a police officer, your a terrorist.
If you resist against our country being hijacked by corporate interests and wall street, your a terrorist.
God forbid if you own more than two guns for protection, you terrorist!

reply to post by MemoryShock

where's the due process?

Someone's opinion can be biased...killing people on potential bias?

First, I am not saying I agree with this. I just think too many times this gets buried in closed doors sessions and we never hear of it. IMO, Blair did something he wasn't supposed to do.

Otherwise, we probably would have never heard about this till months or years later.

Due process is essential, but many times we are not privy to the information that our spy agencies have. While we may see a person like Anwar al-Aulaqi, as an accused terrorist, our spy agencies might have actual proof.

They could try to arrest him, but sometimes trying to arrest somebody in a different country is complicated and maybe even impossible. If this person is intent on doing harm to his/her own country, is it not the responsibility of government to stop them at all costs?

reply to post by jam321


I don't think we are worried about this being used on someone like him. Its people like us that we are worried about.

For the love of everything you hold dear, please read this people. Share this with everyone. We all know the loose terms the government uses to define terrorists. THIS is a step too far. They can now kill you if they deem you a terrorist. They are now Judge Jury and Executioner.

Originally posted by jam321
If this person is intent on doing harm to his/her own country, is it not the responsibility of government to stop them at all costs?

Define "intent" as interpretated by Covert Operations...please.

reply to post by MemoryShock


I don't think anyone here is qualified to define the word "terrorist" or "intent" as they define it.

Just read the underlined text.....

Blair replied: "The reason I went this far in open session is I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering -- in fact we're not careless about endangering lives at all -- but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country."

In making such decisions, "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans, those are the factors involved," Blair said.

So who is the threat to other Americans now? Blair just told us he didn't care about endangering American lives, and that is pretty much a threat.

Blair, and the spy agencies, just threatened Americans.

Do you see the irony?

[edit on 3-2-2010 by ALLis0NE]

LOL! Someone please tell me this is a werid sick joke.

They might as well put a red dot on everyone's foreheads and just wait until you talk back or stand up against them, then pop.

I mean we can't even get a trial anymore?

If you say, 'ALALALALAHLALA!' in public you are going to be shot, NO questions asked, cause you were obviously a terrorist.

The War on Terror needs to be stopped. That is just plain FU*KED UP!

[edit on 3-2-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

where's the due process?

Someone's opinion can be biased...killing people on potential bias?

First, I am not saying I agree with this. I just think too many times this gets buried in closed doors sessions and we never hear of it. IMO, Blair did something he wasn't supposed to do.

Otherwise, we probably would have never heard about this till months or years later.

Due process is essential, but many times we are not privy to the information that our spy agencies have. While we may see a person like Anwar al-Aulaqi, as an accused terrorist, our spy agencies might have actual proof.

They could try to arrest him, but sometimes trying to arrest somebody in a different country is complicated and maybe even impossible. If this person is intent on doing harm to his/her own country, is it not the responsibility of government to stop them at all costs?

I'm not quite sure I understand how it's more difficult to launch a military strike on foreign soil than it is to arrest the American in question. It seems like it would be far easier diplomatically to arrest someone in Yemen than it would be to blow up a camp of Yemeni/American suspected terrorists.

My main concern is that this carte blanche to kill undesirable Americans will eventually lead to domestic targets. Instead of arresting "terrorist" cells of Americans, the CIA simply gases them to death.

As I said, the only time any agency of state or federal governments should kill an American is when that American is in the act of endangering innocent lives.

Simply being part of an extremist organization should not give the CIA carte blanche to assassinate citizens.

I do agree with you that this has probably been going on for awhile (at least since Patriot Act 1.0), but I believe the recent spate of court rulings that have significantly broadened intel agencies' powers have given them more courage to act independently of the public.

The fact that they're willing to talk about it in an open session and be assured that no one is going to do anything about it, is pretty telling.