The Obama regime makes the case for using drones against American citizens

Back in September of 2011 Barack Obama ordered a drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a radicalized American citizen hiding in Yemen–he was eventually killed in a drone attack. At the time I thought this killing was justified because he decided to take up arms against the United States, but I was conflicted because he was not on a battlefield fighting against America at the time of his execution. This is what I wrote back then:

The most obvious difference is the fact that Shahzad was an American on American soil while al-Awaki is an American hiding overseas. Yet al-Awaki is not in the war zone and is not actively fighting against the United States. Shouldn’t he then be targeted for arrest, read his rights, and then given a fair trial by jury. This is the argument that the left will make.

He, much like Faisal Shahzad, Nadal Hasan, and Richard Reid, is an American citizen and the constitution grants the people the right to a trial by jury  no matter how heinous the crime. But that constitutionally guaranteed right was denied him and I believe this is a slippery slope.

There is a grey area here and today the Obama regime has tried to defend the authorization to kill American citizens. Eric Holder has said this is a justifiable position for the Obama regime to take:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force

But here is where it gets real worrisome:

The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future

The Obama regime doesn’t need any proof that an American citizen is about to do anything wrong before ordering the killing.  So enemy combatants captured on the battlefield–like those held at GITMO–are granted constitutional rights and are to be given a trial by jury while American citizens are denied this very same constitutional right? Does anyone else have a problem with this? Somehow capturing and getting information from enemy combatants through torture is inhuman and beneath the United States but killing United States citizens is not?

Barack Obama does not see a double standard in this, Jay Carney stated that these strike are “legal, ethical, and wise.” And when Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (with the help of the Republican led house) he deemed the United States as a battlefield on the war on terror. So is it out of the realm of possibility that drone strikes could be ordered on American citizens on United States soil? And whom exactly does Barack Obama feel is an enemy to the United States?

According to the now infamous “right wing extremist” report that list includes returning United States veterans, pro-life people, pr0-second amendment people, anti-illegal immigration people, and pro-small government believers on the list as possible domestic terrorists.

And then when you take into account the fact that Barack Obama signed into law the FAA Re-authorization Act (again with the help of the Republican led House) which authorized the use of up to 30,ooo drones flying over United States cities, and the fact that Homeland Security has ordered 7,000 assault weapons and millions of rounds of hollow point bullets, which cannot be used in combat and are not used for target practice, which means there is only one legitimate use for these bullets and you have to wonder what exactly the Obama regime is preparing for.

Many out there will think this is tinfoil hat material but when you look at all of these issues together, rather than as separate issues, it certainly appears as if Barack Obama is preparing for a domestic uprising–possibly after the economy finally collapses, which it will if we do not change our ways.

If you enjoyed this post you can read more by Steve Dennis at America’s Watchtower.

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Obama-nation and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Obama regime makes the case for using drones against American citizens

  1. Chuck Bledsoe says:

    That “associated force” clause bugs me…..For the reason that soon Patriots will become “Domestic Terrorist” and by association, al Queda, and therefore… “Legal Targets…

  2. Carlos Helms says:

    Are the GITMO detainees going to be tried by juries?

    I hadn’t heard that. I think that was Holder’s plan; but it didn’t work out so well.

    Everywhere is a battlefield. Battlefield executions are not a new thing. While I understand the concept of the “slippery-slope,” I can’t say that I shed many tears over the droning of the self-confessed murdering, whore-mongering pervert, al whacki. And, it saved money. I’d have offed him for free, given the opportunity; albeit in a more “subtle” fashion.

    That said, it appears the “key” to not getting droned overseas may be to avoid confessing to any crimes (regardless of how proud one might be of them) while advertising new ways to kill Americans while “hiding” in some rat-hole in Yemen.

  3. landsharkxray says:

    OK. Al Awaki confessed to and promoted the killing of innocent civilians. Am I right? Hitler ordered and promoted the killing of civilians with bombings and missile atacks on Britain. Hitler and his war industries were in turn targeted by US and British bombers. If you participate in, order or promote, the killing of innocent civilians, for the purpose of collapsing a legitimate political system, you are a terrorist, and you are definitively committing an act of war, and therefore, subject to the consequences of war. However, within the confines of the United States, every effort should be made to capture such persons in order to protect innocent civilians from becoming “collateral damage”, and to avoid destruction of valuable realestate.

  4. steve says:

    i am 100% totally against drones. They are Orwellian in nature, allow for an acute concentration of power and offer too much plausible deny-ability. Let not forget there are two types of drones. Those that violate the 1,3, 5 and 9th amendments to privacy and the right to have the government not all up i our business and those that break a commandment…thou shall not kill.

  5. marv says:

    thing is they have already been used on americans!

  6. cyclimus says:

    Reblogged this on freedomsbrushfire and commented:
    It is not inconceivable that this administration or the next would construe this policy to allow for the execution of American citizens without trial or evidence. It is not a long leap in any imagination.

    How far is it really from authorizing “drone strikes” on American citizens WITHOUT evidence to lining people up at a ditch and shooting them in the back of the head just because of who they are or what they believe?

    It might be time to double check the zero on my rifles tonight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s