Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Obama Assassination Program, Chapter Two

Norris raises interesting questions.

As you recall, The Regime-Leader Obama has authorized assassinations of US citizens who are deemed to be 'terrorists.' While for the present such killings are only allowed overseas (we think), this text is important:

President Obama... explained in an often overlooked statement within the document of the National Security Strategy: "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. … This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."

So. What happens if the ObamaBoyzzz find a US-citizen "terrorist" in the US?

Now, it finally is coming to light why back on Dec. 16, 2009, Obama signed an executive order "designating Interpol [International Criminal Police Organization] as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities."

Those 'exemptions' include an exemption from US search-and-siezure laws.

And Norris has another observation of interest:

...he [Obama] has changed the definitions of terrorism and terrorists. Their definitions no longer necessarily include or infer Islamic extremism or extremists.

We already know that Napolitano's DHS DID include pro-life people on their "terrorist" list (until that list became public.)

Would Interpol take out Abp. Dolan? Bp. Morlino? Charlie Sykes?

When the executive branch solely defines what and who is a terrorist and enlarges its unilateral power to execute the death penalty on U.S. citizens without due process or a trial, does not the whole country see this as Washington power run amuck?

Good question.


Anonymous said...

Hey, you did say "Buy More Ammo". But don't flatter yourself, you're not on the list.

Remember that it was BUSH (with advice from Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons) who first made this happen with its authorization (but not implementation). Convenient how you neglect to mention that important fact rather than provide context. So, with Bush, it WAS on the table.


Had Bush been the one to put into motion this apparent abuse of power, would you be "up in arms"? Or loudly yelling "Go get the bad guys"?

Dad29 said...

I have NEVER agreed with GWB's invasion-of-privacy schemes, regardless of Sensenbrenner's apparent acquiescence.

It should also be clear that GWB's ideas of governance do not meet my ideas of common sense in lots of regards.

And it's not my actual job to dig around the intertubes to find the origins of bad policies, anony.

But keep up your research efforts. Someday I'll give you a cookie!

Anonymous said...

"And it's not my actual job to dig around the intertubes to find the origins of bad policies."

I just choked on that cookie with that comment, since your entire blog is based on using the Internet to expose the "bad" policies of Democrats and liberals!

But keep up your research efforts. Someday you'll reach 100 followers and we'll have a parade in your honor.