Obama Will Use Drones to Assassinate Americans in the United States

Senator Rand Paul’s persistence paid off. After several inquiries to Attorney General Eric Holder, we now have an answer. The Obama administration reserves the right to use predator drones to assassinate American citizens without due process – not just overseas but within the United States. In a letter to Senator Paul, Attorney General Holder responded frankly:

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 of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

It may have been expected that Holder would mention open insurrection as a situation in which such force would be used against the American people. However, the Attorney General did not bring up that possibility. Instead, he mentions Pearl Harbor and 9/11. What is strange about this is that neither of these horrific attacks was perpetrated by American citizens.

The fact that the Obama administration has set the threshold for use of the Obama assassination policy on Americans within the United States so low creates great concern. Virtually any attack on the United States or any major terrorist event – whether genuine or a false flag – could trigger the cessation of due process and the assassination of Americans. Holder is no stranger to covert machinations as his role in the “Fast and Furious” scandal indicates.  Holder’s words also seem to leave the door open for such force to be used in the event of a major natural disaster or any widespread unrest that might occur in the wake of a possibly inevitable financial collapse within the United States.  

Another chilling aspect of Holder’s words is that he made no mention of al Qaeda. This strongly suggests that the Obama assassination doctrine is not reserved merely for one who is a “senior operational leader” of “al Qaeda or an associated force.” The Department of Homeland Security has set forth a number of absurd, puzzling, and frightening criteria by which an American might be considered a “suspected terrorist.” These include speaking out against government policies, protesting, questioning war, holding gold, creating alternative currencies, stockpiling food, supporting Ron Paul and being a libertarian, liking a Founding Father, etc. For a well documented list of links of the various government criteria for being a “suspected terrorist” see “Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away” on Washington’s Blog.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration has openly admitted that it is willing and able to kill Americans within the United States without due process and in the absence of an insurrection-triggered suspension of Habeas Corpus. If this does not create moral outrage throughout the Republic, then perhaps we frogs are already fully boiled.

What to Expect from Obama's Second Term (Part Three)

More violations of civil liberties

As a presidential candidate in 2007, Barack Obama pledged to champion civil liberties and revise the PATRIOT Act. Obama vowed: “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.”  He talked the talk of a civil libertarian:

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

 

Unfortunately, President Obama did not walk the walk of a civil libertarian. He has proven to be even more of a totalitarian than his predecessor George W. Bush. In May of 2011, Obama signed a four year extension of the PATRIOT Act, justifying this by saying: “It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat.” Thus, when Obama became Commander-in-Chief, he could not resist playing Fuhrer where it came to civil liberties. 

While Obama did decry torture, this did not stop him from continuing the barbaric practice of “extraordinary rendition.” There is no moral difference between torturing and allowing torture to be carried out overseas in your name. He also reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Apparently, Obama believes that human beings only have the natural right to due process when he says that they do.

President Obama’s most egregious violation of civil liberties was his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) at the end of 2011. Among the provisions of this military funding bill is a controversial provision concerning the detention of persons by the military in “the War on Terror.”  This section of the NDAA covers two specific groups of persons:

A person who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks.

A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

The NDAA does not specify any geographic limitation, meaning that it applies to all such persons overseas or within the United States. The law is also vague in that it does not exactly define what constitutes being a part of “associated forces.”

When covered persons are not American citizens, the NDAA requires that they be detained “under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” In other words, the law requires that such vaguely defined persons be detained in military custody indefinitely. As “the War on Terror” appears to have become a continuous Orwellian War, persons held under the NDAA can potentially be detained for the remainder of their lives without trial.

However, the most alarming portion of the NDAA is Section 1022(b)(1) which states that: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  While this section may appear to exclude all American citizens from such indefinite military detention, it is clear upon closer scrutiny that it merely means that the President is not required to detain American “covered persons” indefinitely without trial. Therefore, it still gives the President the discretion to detain American “covered persons” indefinitely without trial.

President Obama issued a signing statement concerning the NDAA which stated:

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

However, Barack Obama changed his mind on the PATRIOT Act, so what is to stop him from changing his mind about the NDAA if it is politically expedient to do so? Obama has shown himself to be anything but a friend of civil liberties, and the "mandate" that he perceives to have been given in his reelection is likely to make him even more power-hungry. This does not bode well for the civil liberties of Americans over the next four years.

What to Expect from Obama's Second Term (Part Two)

More drone attacks

When President Nixon engaged in Operation Menu – his secret bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam Conflict – Progressives decried it when it was revealed. When President George W. Bush was carrying out drone attacks in Pakistan, Progressives accused him of being a war criminal. However, when President Obama increased the campaign of drone attacks and expanded their scope to Yemen and Somalia, Progressives remained quiet.

As of late September of 2012, the number of drone attacks carried out by the Obama administration during its first term was four times greater than the number of drone attacks carried out during the two terms of the Bush administration. As of August of 2012, Obama had carried out up to 337 drone strikes in Pakistan, 35-45 in Yemen, and another nine in Somalia.

According to a study by Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law, the number of “high level” targets killed by such drone strikes is extremely low – about 2%. According to data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism: “from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children.”

Unconstitutional warfare employing drones has become Obama’s favored form of militarism. Unlike Nixon, Obama sees no need to commit his war crimes covertly. It is not going out on a limb to predict that the number of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere will continue to increase during Obama’s second term. As innocent civilians will inevitably be killed in large numbers in these drone strikes, blowback is inevitable. Obama is creating a whole new generation of enemies for the United States. These drone attacks are perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that al Qaeda and other radical terrorist organizations could hope for. Worse yet, producing blowback in a nuclear armed nation like Pakistan is courting apocalyptic disaster. It is estimated that Pakistan possesses between 90 and 110 nuclear warheads. Should the Pakistani government fall under the control of radical Muslim elements, there is no telling what they might do with those weapons if they believe the nation is under attack by the United States. If drone strikes are not a form of terrorism, it is unclear what terrorism is. And it would only be natural for Pakistanis to one day seek vengeance for innocent civilians killed in drone strikes. Nevertheless, President Obama is unlikely to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize Laureate status during his second term.  

On Medicating the Drinking Water

By Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bioethicist Jacob Appel at the website bigthink.com has argued that the government should add lithium to the drinking water. He cites studies in the United States and Japan that allegedly show that where lithium is naturally present in trace amounts in the drinking water, there are lower rates of suicide and crime. He is quick to note that he is not suggesting adding "therapeutic amounts" of lithium to the drinking water, claiming that where such lithium is present in trace amounts, one would have to drink "several Olympic size pools" of water to get lithium in therapeutic doses. He adds that since there is "no reason" to believe that the water is not safe where lithium occurs naturally in trace amounts, "why not give everybody that benefit?" He further claims that lifelong exposure to lithium "makes the brain more healthy."

Appel begins his video piece on bigthink.com by stating that the first question concerning adding any pharmaceutical to the drinking water is ethical is "Should any product that might be beneficial be added to the drinking water?" He, unsurprisingly, appeals to fluoridation of drinking water as a means to dismiss this question straightaway. He accuses those who opposed adding lithium to the drinking water now as well as those who have opposed adding fluoride to the drinking water as holding "a false naturalism." Of course, this is what he says, but it is clear that he is really labeling anyone who dare oppose the scientific elites as nutters wearing aluminum foil hats. He then, speaking (or lisping, really) very slowly so that dummies can understand him, explains that pain is natural and anesthesia is not. Of course, what opponents of such Dr. Frankenstein style social engineering really worry about are the side effects of such chemicals, but no point in addressing a real objection when you have a strawman to attack, I suppose. He does return to discussing fluoride in the drinking water by appealing to the Surgeon General's praise of it. Nothing like a falacious appeal to authority to bolster a sophist's argument! Shortly thereafter, he stumbles. He begins to say that there is no evidence that fluoride in drinking water does any damage but then unconsciously qualifies that by saying "no credible evidence." In other words, the scientific studies that support his point of view are automatically credible and those that find that fluoride does do damage are automatically not credible. Good to know!

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that both fluoride and lithium are completely beneficial and pose no dangers whatsoever. Let us ignore all the very credible studies to the contrary. In fact, let us conduct a little thought experiment. The government wishes to add Beneficio to the water supply. Beneficio is a medication which cures cancer, cures all mental illnesses, cures AIDS, and has no side effects other than increasing lifespan and health. Does the government constitutionally have the right to do this?

The Federal District Court of New Jersey in Rennie v. Klein (1978), a case in which an involuntarily committed patient sued to prevent the hospital from administering psychotropic drugs to him without a clear emergency, held that:

The protection of liberty embodied in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to refuse administration of anti-psychotic drugs. The state may compel such medication in the face of a patient's refusal to accept it only by demonstrating either that the medication is necessary to prevent a danger to the patient or to others in the community, or that the patient does not have the mental capacity to determine for himself his course of treatment.

Therefore, under the Constitution, Americans have a right to refuse being given medication. This would include fluoride, lithium, and any other soma-like substance that the scientific elite and progressive social engineers would like to put into the drinking water.

However, scientific elites and progressive social engineers will never back down. They never do. It is easy to imagine them arguing that suicide, violent crime, or some other bugaboo makes each of us a threat to ourselves and others. While any such argument would, of course, be specious, it is not difficult to imagine five of nine justices on a Supreme Court that is increasingly indifferent or even hostile to rights accepting something like it.

The best ultimate grounds for justifying the right to refuse medications such as fluoride or lithium in the drinking water is an appeal to the natural right of self ownership. The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is a clear recognition that just because a natural right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, it does not mean that Americans do not possess that right. The natural right of self ownership is perhaps best stated by philosopher John Locke (whose ideas Jefferson clearly liberally borrowed in writing the Declaration of Independence): "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself." This natural right is clearly a necessary basis for the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed in our republican form of government. Furthermore, it is clearly recognized in the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery and involuntary servitude. Thus, in virtue of being humans, we possess a natural right against having fluoride, lithium, or any other medication placed into our drinking water.