Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

I can't wait to see the Obama apologists strain themselves to rush in and defend their progressive hero.

What a complete and utter fraud!

He and his supporters...

I think after the Bush administration, and now Obama, the rule of law is squarely dead in this country.

RIP America. You were a noble experiment.

Originally posted by Surfrat
Terrorists declared war on America long ago - they chose to wage war on us and we must respond to the challenge by destroying them every chance we get. The terrorists waging war against America that are American citizens are a greater danger to America than most other terrorists because of their access to every target in America. Killing terrorists ensures that no Americans will be held hostage by terrorist groups hoping to free a captured terrorist - any American citizen that joins the terrorist groups is a traitor to America and deserves nothing better than to be shot down like a dog. To keep it simple - the best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to kill all the terrorists.
The downside is the panel and how they choose who is on the list. If you disagree with Government; what keeps them from putting any one of us on the list? ATS could be a target rich environment.

so which agency of the state do you work for ? Only minions of the state believe the propaganda..

Isn't it also ironic that a thread confirming a secret death committee advising the President of the United States should only receive barely a page of replies on a conspiracy website?

reply to post by loam


But, it's a conspiracy website that doesn't even believe in aliens.
Does that make it more believable?

The reason there's no discussion is that you are all so direct in your disapprobation of this latter-day "star chamber," that none dare dissent from your deduction.

And there really can be no conversation, when we all unite in weak resignation, to the evils we deplore.


So I offer myself as a devil's advocate, to get the conversation flowing in earnest.

*****

What is a warrant, really? It is an authority giving instructions to an executor as to how to proceed. In law enforcement, it means that all sides of the situation have been considered, and the authority (a judge) takes responsibility for the morality of the officer's orders. From that point on, it is the issuer of the warrant, who is questioned legally, and not the officer executing the warrant.

And if the powers of war rest in an ultimate figure, it must be the commander-in-chief. To what greater authority could a litigant appeal? Not the supreme court---our constitution clearly states that congress has the sole power of impeachment for the presidency.

(Incidentally, impeachment is the trial of a leader, and NOT kicking him out of office. Nixon was not impeached, but Clinton was).

And the problem with asking Congress to write warrants is that Congress has a notorious record of being unable to keep secrets. Consider the May incident, in which the chairman of the armed services committee, in the very depths of World War Two, mentioned at a press conference, that American Submarines were surviving Japanese depth charges because the Japs underestimated how deep Yankee subs could submerge.... It's been estimated that his quip cost 14 submarines and around 800 American Lives.

If the NSC asked Congress for a warrant to kill Al-Awlaki, do you think he would have heard about it beforehand? And what would he have done? Gone into hiding for a decade, just like Bin-Laden, no doubt.

I'm sure that Pharaoh Obama and his minions would argue that there "is" due process---and that due process takes place in a meeting of advisors, and no one takes notes; but they argue pro and con, agonizing for hours over whether to actually do the deed. And that in the end, it's just the same as a "no-knock warrant" used to take out a drug kingpin or child molester.

How's that for Diabolic Advocacy, ATS?

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


*crickets*



Theater of the absurd.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower Thoughts?

Welcome to the 4th Reich. Zeig Heil!

Originally posted by Surfrat
Terrorists declared war on America long ago - they chose to wage war on us and we must respond to the challenge by destroying them every chance we get. The terrorists waging war against America that are American citizens are a greater danger to America than most other terrorists because of their access to every target in America. Killing terrorists ensures that no Americans will be held hostage by terrorist groups hoping to free a captured terrorist - any American citizen that joins the terrorist groups is a traitor to America and deserves nothing better than to be shot down like a dog. To keep it simple - the best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to kill all the terrorists.
The downside is the panel and how they choose who is on the list. If you disagree with Government; what keeps them from putting any one of us on the list? ATS could be a target rich environment.

I have read alot of misguided posts on ATS over the years and yours takes the top prize. Do you really believe this or is it a script. I am sorry I have to ask but it just seemed to well thought out.


If you truly believe it then think about this what is the best way to get people to do what you want? FEAR


Watch, when the big bad boogie man does not work anymore they will think something else up. And the sheep will cower in FEAR.

Sarah Palin warned us of 'Death Panels', she just got mixed up with the wrong panel

[Devil's Advocate]

Compare Al-Awlaki with the tens of thousands of American citizens who took up arms against the US government under the banner of the Confederate States of America.

Did the President at that time get a warrant for the arrest, let alone execution, of any of the rebels?

No. He sent his agents (some coerced into service by a draft) to....shoot 'em down. They didn't arrest anyone, and sometimes even ignored the white flag of surrender (but that may not have been at Lincoln's order).

Thousands of those who did manage to surrender alive were held at notorious concentration camps like Camp Douglas in Chicago and the notorious Elmira Prison in New York, where 3000 died of starvation and exposure without ever being charged or tried.

And it wasn't only combatants who were arrested and imprisoned or outright executed. Estimates are that several hundred "sympathizers" were executed by firing squad during the Civil War, but there are no official numbers....since no official records were kept! (I found one account online where a man in Missouri was hanged for the crime of possessing Confederate currency).

The US government, just like every government, occasionally moves against it's enemies, even it's own wayward sons, without the benefit of legal proceedings, when there is a risk the target could not be arrested otherwise. That is precisely the argument the WH is making in the video Loam just posted.

If Al-Awlaki had joined the Army of Virginia, instead of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, what would have been different for him?

[/Devil's Advocate]

Although in truth I am disgusted at the self righteous 'professionals hit list to murder' I do feel certain terrorists well deserve this, but I have a problem with the breakdown of arrest and trial, not that its not possible to rig trials. I am deeply saddened that we as humanity have come to this hideous level of hypocrasy and legalised slaughter.

I read the comment on how the Israeli government carries this out with the apparent 'so what' when innocent bystanders are killed. Israel exists in its own league when it comes to killing both people of equal murderous intention as well as people who simply ethnically shouldn't be there or have an opposing view or scientific capability which Netanyabooho's decides poses a threat.

What this list really botheres me about leads on from that scientific capability and concerns the number of scientists who have died recently. We have Dr Kelly in the UK to name one but has anyone noticed how dangerous it is to be a scientist today? Their profession must rate next to terrorists in numbers of deaths. ( So-and-so was found dead in his home today. It appears he suffered a heart attack, Or S0-and-so died in a mysterious car crash or So-and-so committed suicide today) I am not being crass about comparing the two occupations but do we have the full list of categories these hit lists cover because I certainly don't believe its only for terrorists , its for whistleblowers and any voice of opposition.

In fact I suspect that because we are all subject to the anti terrorist legislation that positively flew through our lawmakers paws, our governments all view their own citizens as subversive terrorists that should be culled and controlled and have the vote taken away from them as indeed they are blatantly taking our money and property away from us. Asset stripping is also a means of disempowering your population.

So glad to see people are fighting back. The harder those nazi brutes beat the public with their trunctions at the protests,the more obvious it is that the putrefying fat cats league is getting frightened their time is up. We don't need to worry about 2012 and something nasty coming our way, history shows its often internal matters that destroy civilasations. In 2011 we can trace this back to corrupt bankers, international corporations and corrupt politicians and their minions.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And the problem with asking Congress to write warrants is that Congress has a notorious record of being unable to keep secrets.

And there's that pesky separation of powers. Congress is the legislative branch; it can create courts, but it cannot be a court (except for impeachment, of course).

If the NSC asked Congress for a warrant to kill Al-Awlaki, do you think he would have heard about it beforehand? And what would he have done? Gone into hiding for a decade, just like Bin-Laden, no doubt.

A legislative act declaring someone guilty and calling for their death is a bill of attainder, explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

I'm sure that Pharaoh Obama and his minions would argue that there "is" due process---and that due process takes place in a meeting of advisors, and no one takes notes; but they argue pro and con, agonizing for hours over whether to actually do the deed. And that in the end, it's just the same as a "no-knock warrant" used to take out a drug kingpin or child molester.

Designating a military target is not getting a warrant, nor did the administration pretend it was serving some kind of warrant. This entire line of thinking is dilatory.

the problem I see with most arguments in this thread....

TERRORISM RULES ARE DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR RULES......


Here are reasons why.

1. Terrorists will kill anyone at a whim, kid, woman, man, doesn't matter to them, they are all infidels...

2. Terrorists may or may not act at any time.... and usually results in them dying anyway (suicide)

3. Terrorists typically are plotting things that get intercepted via classified methods, hence the secrecy of how and what info they base the kill order on.

4. Terrorists typically become martyrs for their cause, and succesful attacks = new members... dumb but true

-------------------------------------------------------

All this says, is this.... Terrorists can not be held to the standard war criminal standard, because they don't play by the standard rules of war.... When A tries to play by the rules, and B doesn't.... it typically goes badly for A. Case in point, the revolutionary war... the British were in standing formation, while the Americans hid behind trees, and in ditches, etc. ie gorilla warfare...

-------------------------------------------------------

This is why I am a supporter of things like this, even though I believe there should be more transparency after the fact than is currently being given.... I can only hope that they realize this some day, and can put it out there.

Nations are not defined by geography, race or religion.
They are defined by their laws and just application.
Any governing body that does not follow it's own laws loses all moral and legal authority to be the arbiter of law over it's citizens.
There is a remedy for this in the Constitution.
It's called IMPEACHMENT.
If anyone in Congress were truly interested in governing through law they would be leading the charge to begin proceedings.

Impeachment- It's not just for Presidents anymore.
It is for all in the executive branch who commit high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress included.
Murder is a felony and the highest crime in the land aside from treason.

How anyone can defend these actions is beyond me.
All I can say is hold your double standards high and don't ever call on the law to defend your rights, life or property if you have such disdain for it.
.

Thanks for the all the replies folks, but in all honesty, are any of us surprised?

IMO a secret panel like this has been operating for years, I just don't think the President had a say or anything initially. The CIA and other 3 letter agencies decide to kill folks everyday without any sort of authorization or second thought.

However you must admit that Obama has been very effective at ridding the world of terrorists, at least high profile ones. I"m not saying that he deserves all the credit, obviously a lot of people worked on this for a long time, but he's been relatively effective in this area.

I'm no longer a fan though, haven't been for a while and this sort of secret, over reach of executive power is what really makes my skin crawl. There's no respect for the laws of the land anymore, it's just whatever they can get away with is what they do..

~Keeper

I think this is getting dangerously close to FEMA camps and/or even a depopulation agenda. From ''hit lists'' and turning people into terrorists, history shows us it's really not that far-fetched.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If our government had clearly defined our goals and objectives in fighting radial islamists and other threats, meaning we officially declared war, then I would have no problem with the assassination or even black bagging these guys regardless of where they were. I'd prefer military tribunals at least, but that's not always an option.

In these wishy washy times, however, with a relatively unclear political stance and doublespeak, I can't support this kind of action unless it's done with actionable intel that is to prevent a specific attack in progress.

Why can't we simply get over this "moral highground" we like to pretend we are on and get down and dirty with these people.

Corporate Slaves of West China/USA is becoming more and more authoritarian and brutal with freedoms and human/civil rights.

This is just candy coated fascism/corporatism pure and simple.
Murdering Americans without a trail of their peers.
This is just a heat check. They want to see if we are stupid enough to let this insanity pass.
So you like if he the government can randomly kill who it pleases without any oversight whats so ever? Where do the american people get involved?

This is just like in the soviet union with their "enemies of the state".

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Corporate Slaves of West China/USA is becoming more and more authoritarian and brutal with freedoms and human/civil rights. This is just candy coated fascism/corporatism pure and simple.

Way to totally over- and misrepresent the problem. Slaves are slaves because their mentality is that of slaves. Simple as that, and if you think the American people did not fit the chains around their own necks, then you are grossly mistaken. They not only did it, but asked for it in ever increasing amounts, so take a step back and relax a little bit.

Murdering Americans without a trail of their peers. This is just a heat check. They want to see if we are stupid enough to let this insanity pass.
So you like if he the government can randomly kill who it pleases without any oversight whats so ever? Where do the american people get involved?

This is just like in the soviet union with their "enemies of the state".

You strike me as someone who either didn't read what I actually wrote or didn't understand my position despite being pretty clear.

I'll clarify if it's the latter. America has handle much of it's problems, publicly, with kid gloves because we seem to feel we have some kind of moral high ground to maintain. We don't, and never have. The government has three prime job in terms of global politics: Maintain good trade relations with any and all nations that wish to trade with us, control immigration, and (most importantly) defend the people of the United States.

If we would actually declare war against those who seek to strike the US, those who finance the operations, and those who aid them, then we have the full right to assassinate, capture, interrogate, or imprison those people. If they are American citizens, so be it.

On the other hand, if we choose to be ambiguous about our goals, not declare war, and continue to use military action than we stand the risk of breaking domestic laws.

I could, honestly, care less about international law. There really is no such thing since we have the ability to follow or not follow it as the situation dictates. In terms of oversight, who would you say would be a good group to oversee such things?

The American people? Hardly. They lost their stomach for hard choices decades ago.

so you would risk 30 troops lives minimum, to arrest these guys, and give them a trial by a court of law.... this U.S./Yemen terrorist is an enemy combatant.... if it were to risky to take him alive, then they did the right thing in my book... I'm sorry but there comes a point when you have to admit that it is better to kill one bad guy remotely, than to risk losing troops to bring him in alive....


Terrorists are considered foreign fighters/enemy combatants.... the laws of the U.S. do not apply.... at best they get a court called a Military tribunal.... You people realize that the laws where these dudes are residing are harsher than the laws of the U.S. right?

Guess ignorance is bliss, when you don't realize that you are giving these guys a better life by bringing them here for trials....

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


You are spot on about bills of attainder and the futility of requiring the administration to get a warrant to prosecute a military maneuver. very perceptive.

What do you think of the comparison between Al-Awlaki and confederate soldiers / agents?