Author Topic: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!  (Read 10088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jordan

  • Guest
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s top Pentagon lawyer on Wednesday said that American citizens who join Al Qaeda can be targeted for killing and that courts should have no role in reviewing executive branch decisions about whether someone has met such criteria.

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” said Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, in a speech at Yale Law School.

Mr. Johnson’s remarks offered an unusually comprehensive and public declaration of the Obama administration’s national security legal policy views in the war against Al Qaeda and its allies. While the outlines of those views have been aired in pieces before, officials usually discuss such matters only on condition of anonymity.

In raising the targeted killing of an American citizen, Mr. Johnson emphasized that he was not talking about any particular operation. The administration has declined to discuss its killing last September of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born radical Islamist cleric who died in a drone strike in Yemen that technically remains a covert operation.

Still, Mr. Johnson invoked a lawsuit filed by Mr. Awlaki’s father before the killing that had sought an injunction against targeting his son, citing with approval a district judge’s decision to dismiss the case and saying that targeting decisions are not suited to court review because they must be made quickly and based on fast-evolving intelligence.

“Within the executive branch the views and opinions of the lawyers on the president’s national security team are debated and heavily scrutinized, and a legal review of the application of lethal force is the weightiest judgment a lawyer can make,” he said. “And, when these judgments start to become easy, it is time for me to return to private law practice.”

Mr. Johnson also emphasized that even though the conflict is against an unconventional force, the administration believes that it must apply conventional legal principles – like the Geneva Conventions, international laws of armed conflict, and traditional ways of interpreting domestic wartime statutes – in waging it.

Still, he described a broad interpretation of the authorization by Congress to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that nothing in that statute limited the ability to wage war against Al Qaeda and its allies to the so-called “hot” battlefield zone of Afghanistan.

“The legal point is important because, in fact, over the last 10 years Al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part, migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven,” Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson explained that in deciding whether an armed Islamist group that is not part of Al Qaeda counts as an “associated force” – meaning it is part of the war, so its members can be targeted or detained without trial – the administration is using a two-part test: such a group must have aligned itself with Al Qaeda, and it must have specifically started fighting the United States and its allies.

“Thus, an ‘associated force’ is not any terrorist group in the world that merely embraces the Al Qaeda ideology,” he said. “More is required before we draw the legal conclusion that the group fits within the statutory authorization for the use of military force passed by the Congress in 2001.”

Mr. Johnson also told the Yale Law School audience that it was true that he had sometimes disagreed with the school’s former dean, Harold Hongju Koh, who is now the top State Department lawyer. But he praised Mr. Koh and said it was a good thing that such lawyers were thrashing out difficult legal issues together rather than succumbing to “group think.”

One of the disputes between Mr. Koh and Mr. Johnson, as reported last year by The Times, was whether the United States’ war against Al Qaeda extended to every member of the Islamist groups in Yemen and Somalia, or just to high-level leaders who were focused on attacking the United States rather than parochial concerns.

That dispute may have been partly settled earlier this month when a video surfaced in which Ayman al-Zawahri – who took over as Al Qaeda’s leader after United States forces killed Osama bin Laden last year – said that the Shabab, a militant Islamist group in Somalia, had formally joined Al Qaeda.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/pentagon-says-u-s-citizens-with-terrorism-ties-can-be-targeted-in-strikes/

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,814
Re: Obama top Pentagon lawyer: American citizens can be targeted for Killing
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2012, 07:34:36 pm »
  In that case we are going to loose a flock of NWO insiders.
  Not real funny, my humor is lacking.
  We have inside operatives and their lackey contractors, I was in Saigon before the fall, bookending a MSM rep. The mercs i met there, knew where they were heading to for the next ten years. No, I am not a merc, I was only bodyguarding.
  My point to this is we have Al Q and we have the controllers, ALQ could have some believers out there fighting for what they believe is a cause and then there are contractors suking up big bucks , whoops- we have the head of the snake running them.
  The Hydra syndrome, a first step to legalize the assassination of citizens by law.  The DOD, CIA, DHS, FBI etc can set the stage.Though Not all these ( Gov employees) folks are aware of the insiders and their bag of tricks. Compartmentalization.
 

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2012, 08:03:19 pm »
Jeh C. Johnson...

The Pentagon runs Al-Qaeda Operations you moron (for reference google "Libya al-qaeda'.....derrrrr deeeeee derrrrrrr)...

Why are you promoting the mass murder of your own "Red Cell" operation?

Do your fake Al-Qaeda assets who are also American citizens realize you are openly saying that you are going to start mass murdering them?

Your entire Able Danger operation, your entire Counter Intelligence structure now does not kknow what is going on because you are at Skull and Bones saying: "Let's fire up the ovens boys, these Americans ain't gonna start cremating themselves now are they!"

Hey Jeh C. Johnson, you are totally off the fricking reservation man, you are 100% section 8. Claim insanity ASAP because that is likely your only defense for your total batshit insane open declaration of war against the united States of America. You have no authority to murder any American citizen, none, zero, nada. Read the constitution  that you took an oath to defend and please explain where it says you can create a false enemy and then use that false enemy to exterminate millions of innocent American citizens. Please read it at least 1,000x before you publicly speak again or you are libel to just start reciting Mein Kampf in Gregorian chants.

I mean really, WTF is wrong with these anti-American pieces of f**king shit?

The "American" that was murdered under this supposed 'special authority' had lunch at the Pentagon with the Secretary of the Army...you murdered your own guy to justify the future extermination of millions of Americans! And everybody knows.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2012, 08:25:53 pm »
Hey look...

the poster child for mass murdering American citizens was actually a Pentagon asset...

derrrr derrrrrrrrrrrrr



Anwar Al Awlaki Had Executive Lunch At Pentagon Days After 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQSKhe1SZjo

Al Qaeda leader invited to the Pentagon for lunch after 9/11 attacks
http://devoutinfidel.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/al-qaeda-leader-invited-to-the-pentagon-for-lunch-after-911-attacks/

Radical Islamic cleric, Al Qaeda operational planner and U.S. citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, was assassinated by the Obama administration via predator drone missile strike in Yemen today. Apparently the president now has the authority to sentence  U.S. citizens to death without any evidence being presented, charges being brought or trial taking place. What’s more disturbing than that though is that Fox News, yes that Fox News, claimed to have obtained documents last year that show that Al-Awlaki was invited to the Pentagon for lunch months after the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to Fox, Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense’s headquarters as part of a military outreach program to the Muslim community during the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. In an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, a Defense Department employee told investigators that she helped arrange a meeting with Awlaki after seeing him speak in Virgina. One of the documents stated that the employee had ‘attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorists attacks. After her vetting, Awlaki was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel’. Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to three of the hijackers. He was also said to have been linked to Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who emailed Awlaki before the attack as well as 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab. Former Army Secretary Tommy White who led the troops in 2001 has said he doesn’t recall having lunch or any contact with Awlaki. White said: ‘If this was a luncheon at the Office of Government Counsel, I would not necessarily be there’. The Pentagon has yet to offer an explanation as to how one of the world’s most wanted men with clear connections to other terrorists could have ended up at a lunch for Muslim reconciliation soon after the attacks.
Obama declares FATWAH on Pentagon lunch guest, al-Awlaki
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=207730.0
Radical imam invited to speak about 'moderate Islam' at the Pentagon after 9/11 may have known about attacks in advance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389133/Radical-Imam-Anwar-al-Awlakis-Lunch-Pentagon-After-September-11.html
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2012, 08:44:52 pm »
A Conversation with Jeh C. Johnson, General Counsel of the Department of Defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZSDYUl1AEA

Jeh Charles Johnson was appointed General Counsel of the Department of Defense on February 10, 2009, following nomination and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Mr. Johnson serves as the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense and the legal advisor to the Secretary of Defense. His career has been marked by a mixture of high-profile private practice and distinguished public service. Mr. Johnson speaks about his experiences and his work, particularly his work on issues surrounding the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Uploaded by acslaw1776 on Aug 25, 2011
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2012, 08:55:32 pm »
BTW, this is the same guy that said the war in Libya was illegal without congressional approval. I guess he has been mainlining the NWO Kool-Aid.

Here he was just last year:

Obama rejects top lawyers’ views on war power in Libya
Key figures in administration’s legal team questioned continuation of air war without Congress’ OK

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/tag/jeh-c-johnson/
By CHARLIE SAVAGE June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations. Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20. But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged. Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch. A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days. “It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.” Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.” The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed. “The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.” A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities. As the May 20 deadline approached, Jeh C. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission. The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do. In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision. A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama. The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles. The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

This article, “Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya,” first appeared in The New York Times. Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond outraged for Obama’s contempt for the truth and for basic reality:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

Democrats denounced the two wars Bush waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama is still in both countries, but in addition he is now bombing three others.  WE ARE NOW IN FIVE WARS UNDER OBAMA. And now we learn that we is circumventing the normal proces and not even bothering to listen to his own top lawyers. What we are finding out is that Democrats are the quintessential essence of hypocrisy, with way too few exceptions.  Where are all the damn liberal protestors shouting about all these outrages?  They crawled out from every rock when Bush was president. Barack Obama should be impeached according to the standard of BARACK OBAMA:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”
Senator Barack Hussein Obama [a.k.a. Barry Soetoro] December 20, 2007
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2012, 09:08:19 pm »
Remember that Hitler broke no German laws while murdering the millions he did.
Seems our own government is planning on doing the same.
 In both cases the laws were and are being amended to collaborate with the NWO's agenda and the sheep either care not or are ignorant of the perils they soon face.

20% have a feeling something is not right, 10% definitely know something is not right but are not sure as to the exact nature of the problem, 5% are aware, know and see the "bigger picture", but less than 3% are actively involved fighting the evil that now is crossing the thresholds of our own front doors.

When the laws are rewritten to include basically everyone and their families are abducted in the dead of night they will be awake but at that point, too late.

 Men die fighting for many causes but dead men fight not for anything. The NWO powers that be understand this and seek to eliminate any and all who oppose them by any and all means, for from men come ideas worth dying to defend, such as Freedom, Liberty, Digninty, God and Country.         This is what the NWO fears.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,212
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2012, 10:11:45 pm »
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -- Senator Barack Hussein Obama [a.k.a. Barry Soetoro] December 20, 2007

This, of course, proves that Obama knows he's violating his sworn oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and that he is therefore (among other things) a liar and a hypocrite.

But even if the Constitution did authorize the President to act as a totalitarian dictator, would that make it any less wrong?

Of course not.

That's why I've long maintained that the argument against tyranny must ultimately rest upon natural law and natural rights, which, as such, exist prior to and independently of any man-made document or institution.

Even under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights can be lawfully "amended" out of existence. But our natural rights cannot. Hence Thomas Jefferson's use of the term "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence.

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

From http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59:

[...]

If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.

If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.

If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.

But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed -- by any power inferior to that which established it -- than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men -- whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name -- to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.

[Continued...]


http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/social-problems/sp10.html

Social Problems

CHAPTER X.

THE RIGHTS OF MAN.

THERE are those who, when it suits their purpose, say that there are no natural rights, but that all rights spring from the grant of the sovereign political power. It were waste of time to argue with such persons. There are some facts so obvious as to be beyond the necessity of argument. And one of these facts, attested by universal consciousness, is that there are rights as between man and man which existed before the formation of government, and which continue to exist in spite of the abuse of government; that there is a higher law than any human law -- to wit, the law of the Creator, impressed upon and revealed through nature, which is before and above human laws, and upon conformity to which all human laws must depend for their validity. To deny this is to assert that there is no standard whatever by which the rightfulness or wrongfulness of laws and institutions can be measured; to assert that there can be no actions in themselves right and none in themselves wrong; to assert that an edict which commanded mothers to kill their children should receive the same respect as a law prohibiting infanticide.

These natural rights, this higher law, form the only true and sure basis for social organization. Just as, if we would construct a successful machine, we must conform to physical laws, such as the law of gravitation, the law of combustion, the law of expansion, etc.; just as, if we would maintain bodily health, we must conform to the laws of physiology; so, if we would have a peaceful and healthful social state, we must conform our institutions to the great moral laws -- laws to which we are absolutely subject, and which are as much above our control as are the laws of matter and of motion. And as, when we find that a machine will not work, we infer that in its construction some law of physics has been ignored or defied, so when we find social disease and political evils may we infer that in the organization of society moral law has been defied and the natural rights of man have been ignored.

These natural rights of man are thus set forth in the American Declaration of Independence as the basis upon which alone legitimate government can rest:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem to them most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

So does the preamble to the Constitution of the United States appeal to the same principles:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And so, too, is the same fundamental and self-evident truth set forth in that grand Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, issued by the National Assembly of France in 1789:

[Continued...]

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

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.msg985525#msg985525 (The Universal Ethic)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2012, 01:24:58 am »
Guess our peaceful revevolution is having to much of an effect, they want shit to get kicked off so it looks like they're betting on if the blow up a few citizens they'll finally have their civil war.  Well, if that's what they want... I just don't see it going their way.
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2012, 01:51:53 am »
“We will destroy from within what we are trying to protect from without.”

Eugee Jarecki in 5 minutes exposes clearly why the greatest threat to national security is the idea that we can create a perfectly secure environment. He draws his thesis of his book from a quote by Dwight Eisenhower:

“We will destroy from within what we are trying to protect from without.”


Eugene Jarecki believes our society is destroying itself by trying to obtain perfect security.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-20-2008/eugene-jarecki

[NOTE: Eugene's praise for Jon Stewart following the broadcast: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-jarecki/jon-stewart-is-beyond-fun_b_136629.html
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2012, 02:18:22 am »
Quote
This, of course, proves that Obama knows he's violating his sworn oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and that he is therefore (among other things) a liar and a hypocrite.

do you have a certified copy of Obama's oath of office?

does anybody?

having no oath on file means that Obama holds no office

where are the "birthers" one this one?

where are the "oath keepers" on this one?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,212
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Top Pentagon lawyer: We are gonna start mass murdering American citizens!
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2012, 06:51:55 am »
do you have a certified copy of Obama's oath of office?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_12mZskUDyE

He clearly says: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will...to be best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

It was on national television. Not even his brainwashed supporters deny he swore that oath. What more does anyone need?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0