'Dozens' of US citizens on assassination list, White House adviser hints

Originally posted by wrathchild

if this is the type of person that is targeted for "assination"...how is this any different than a lowly insurgent planting a roadside IED????

See, here's the thing.

If you cannot see the difference at this point in your life, most people would probably consider explaining it to you to be a waste of their time.

Perhaps you are just engaging in intentional hebatude?

indulge me with your wisdom....rather than insulting me by not explaining the difference between my point of view..that have I have at least given the effort to explain..and yours.. errrr..."apples and oranges".

I understand that my opinion on this matter is not very popular here..I get it.

And I have explained my reason why.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well your intellectual point is taken and respected. So why don't you sign
up and go arrest them in a civil manner yourself. Please by all means, be our
guest. But a word of warning to you. In your proceedings, you may become a
hostage. You may be used as a pawn and your families lives may become in
danger as well. These targets you wish to defend may very well be double
agents who are nothing more than treasonous "Benedict Arnolds" with U.S.
Passports posing as citizens. At that moment, you will find yourself guilty of
association and conspiring with the enemy. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The way I see it, if my Government is targeting a citizen for termination,
That citizen must be really pushing their luck as a citizen, their rights
as a citizen, and possibly so violent that they are wanted Dead or Alive.
If one of them happens to be "innocent" , and only guilty of having too much
knowledge ,insider information,etc. Then they could easily just Post that information to the world at large via the internet . Now couldn't they?
I don't think anyone in our Government takes the concept of termination lightly these days. But if you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

On that note I wonder what constitutes a terrorist group for Obama?

Well according to the many MIAC reports, being a pro-state sovereignty is being a terrorist. Anti illegal immigration is being a terrorist. Being against the FED is being a terrorist....

According to government standards, 95% of ATS members are terrorists.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Vitchilo]

Oh SNAP!!! Did I say I was pro state soverignity??? UM, I was joking. Did I say I was anti illegal immigration, OH MY I would never!!!! Did I say I hate the FED, NO MAN I LOVE EM...

That should do it....hopefully now I won't be shot dead in cold blood in the streets.

Originally posted by ovenden
On that note I wonder what constitutes a terrorist group for Obama?

Someone who pissed in his Wheaties.

(Or his lobbyist's checkbooks)

[edit on 6/29/2010 by pjslug]

reply to post by Wildmanimal

I don't think anyone in our Government takes the concept of termination lightly these days. But if you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

Ruby Ridge Masscre, and The Waco Siege are two examples where killing citizens was taken pretty lightly.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I hear ya.

However I dont think assassination is the worst way to go. They usually dont gut shoot you and leave you to suffer, someone might come along and get you to the hospital. It would be nice and clean, with a bullet to the head, and if you are in the states a suicide note for your family.

I know I am not important enough to have to worry, but even if I were, as long as someone gets my pets out of the house before they starve, it would be ok. There are worse ways to die than being shot.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

I know I am not important enough to have to worry, but even if I were, as long as someone gets my pets out of the house before they starve, it would be ok. There are worse ways to die than being shot.

If you were important enough, it wouldn't be much skin off of anyone's back to get rid of you.

And the guy who killed you would probably be on salary, in between killings and just a tank of gas away.

It is nice of you to think of your pets though.


*Let's hope that when this sort of assassination becomes official and 'accepted', that they have a policy that addresses the issue of pets - in a nice way.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

I hear ya.

However I dont think assassination is the worst way to go. They usually dont gut shoot you and leave you to suffer, someone might come along and get you to the hospital. It would be nice and clean, with a bullet to the head, and if you are in the states a suicide note for your family.

I know I am not important enough to have to worry, but even if I were, as long as someone gets my pets out of the house before they starve, it would be ok. There are worse ways to die than being shot.

I was joking but really F**** that I don't want to die by any means, DEATH SUX!!!! The lawyers and bankers and politicians should die first. LOL!!! At least they deserve to, I am a good person who's frightened to death of Well, death!!!!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Not to mention all the citizens shot by cops for relatively minor things, and even by mistake. I think it is a tad optimistic to think our authorities value your life for its own sake. There are political reasons they dont openly engage in the murder of citizens that piss them off.

1) they dont have to. Most of us simply dont have enough power to really be more than gnats on their butts.

2) suicide is easy to fake, and people can just suddenly disappear too

3) they are still pretending this is a democracy (yes, dont lecture me on the specifics, its a term they use themselves all the time) because they dont need war at home and abroad.

I think statements like this are more to "test the water" and see how we react than they are about the act itself. We have been assassinating people who piss us off for a long time as a nation. But hey, if the citizens react well to it, and defend the people doing it, why not have a bigger party?

Originally posted by wrathchild
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Agreed...but these people have made themselves an enemy of the state...

put themselves in the same "cross-hairs" as insurgents planting IEDs...and we have all seen those videos.

no difference.....other than the state department should not be publicly bragging about who they are gonna kill...that part is wrong.

The entire concept of a "state" that is over your head, is an insanity many are brainwashed into. I'm soverign. These evil goons running the world have no state power, or entitlement, nor do they have any rights to write up their psuedo laws. I say it clearly.

And I will bend over backwards to be on every single list they have, with the exception of any lists of real murders, real villians, which they have to be on the head of the list for, the billions starving to death, those who have been disenfranchised from their natural inherant rights to resources and land on their own planet of birth without any borders or political hogwosh shoved down their throats or bankers. Its all exhortion, treason (by that I mean treason against our individual sovereignity, and thats the only real form of treason that exists, the other is just a police brutality thing.

I say to them , you murders of women and children in wars and poverty and destroyers of lives and mother earth, bring it!!! We are the light. Not On My Watch!!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Good references, but I don't think those were taken lightly except by the
fools who gave the orders . After all there were major casualties on both
sides, expensive court proceedings, and the remaining dark stain on American
History and Justice. In both cases, innocent children were killed and innocent
law enforcement officers following orders were killed or wounded as well.
While I agree that there were massive injustices experienced on both sides
in those two cases, I don't see your logic on how you are tying this into the
subject at hand which concerns treason, espionage, and aiding and abetting
an Enemy of The United States of America.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Lol. I hope they have a humane policy for the pets of the people they brutally assassinate too, lol.

And of course it wouldnt be too much trouble. I am not a worrier in general, so no alarms, often forget to lock the door, regular habits..........I would be a piece of cake.

I dont think many citizens would be that hard for a trained assassin to take down, even those more careful than me.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by wrathchild

Been like that that for couple hundred years.

No.

It hasn't. Unless you can name the other presidents and post their assassination lists....

These are some of the "Americans working with terrorists" he was referring to:

Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, pardoned by George Washington;
John Brown, 1859l
Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown's raidl
William Bruce Mumford, 1862;
David Owen Dodd, 1864;
Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, George Atzerodt, 1865;
Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose"), 1949;
Herbert Hans Haupt, 1942;
Martin James Monti, 1944;
Robert Henry Best, 1948;
Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally"), 1949;
Tomoya Kawakita, 1952;
Adam Yahiye Gadahn, 2006.

None were on foreign soil when captured and none were "assassinated." Several were executed following conviction.

Terrorists do not need to be arrested or detained under the Laws of War from the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which do not protect nationals of a state that is not bound by them. Americans who have renounced their citizenship are arguably no longer "nationals of a state" bound by the Geneva Convention, either.

Congress never ratified the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention that were criticized in the U.S. as "law in the service of terrorism."

Sounds like fair game to me.

jw

reply to post by Wildmanimal


In American Jurisprudence it is a part of due process of law that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The people you speak of are nameless people of which neither you nor I know a thing about, and yet you have all ready condemned them as being guilty. Here in the court of public opinion this is your right to do so, but when it comes to jurisprudence, our government has been prohibited from abrogating and derogating certain rights of people, and one of those rights is due process of law.

You speak of both Ruby Ridge and Waco as if there were "major" casualties on both sides, however as far as Waco is concerned this doesn't even come close to the truth. For the four federal agents that were killed at the siege at Waco, 80 Davidian's were killed. Even if you took the "three-fifths" Clause of the Constitution and applied that to the Davidian's you would still have a major discrepancy that in no way would represent major casualties on "both" sides. The facts are 4 federal agents dead, 80 Davidian's.

4 Federal agents...
80 Davidian's

4 Federal agents...
80 Davidian's

4 federal agents...
80 Davidian's

With all due respect, your dismissal of this gap illustrates how lightly that incident was taken.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Point taken, but by no means did I assume these "nameless people"
guilty. As far as the ratio you speak of at 'Waco" the fact remains whether
4 deaths , 80 deaths, or 84 deaths. No one should have died. It was a horrible
tragedy for all. How do you measure one life over another? Or 4 lives over
80 for that matter? Regardless, neither of these cases involved "Aiding and
Abetting the Enemy" of The United States of America in time of war.
Which leads me back to the fact that you have deflected my responses and questions to your posts with hasty generalizations. Which are mere curve balls
to divert our attention from an honest and direct response from you, on the subject of combating treasonous citizens in time of war. Like I said before,
if you have there wherewithal to bring these people to a fair trial, by all means do so. However, I believe you are only academically speaking for the sake of
argument, without truly taking into consideration the elements of being under live fire in hostile territory where one of "Your Own" now has his gun sights on you.

reply to post by Wildmanimal

Point taken, but by no means did I assume these "nameless people" guilty.

The nameless people I am referring to are the dozens of people on an assassination list that you have condemned as guilty of "aiding and abetting the enemy" without the benefit of a public trial and conviction to support your assertions.

Regardless, neither of these cases involved "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy" of The United States of America in time of war.

Time of war? No, but are you aware what charges were brought against the survivors of Waco?

The Government dismissed the charges against one of the twelve Davidians, Kathryn Schroeder, pursuant to a plea bargain. After a jury trial lasting nearly two months, the jury acquitted four of the Davidians on all counts with which they were charged. Additionally, the jury acquitted all of the Davidians on the murder-related charges, but convicted five of them on the lesser-included offense of aiding and abetting the voluntary manslaughter of federal agents.

en.wikipedia.org...

I let your smug remark about me going over to Afghanistan and arresting those on the list go the first time, I will not ignore your smugness this time. I have all ready spoken to this and said if there are Americans acting in consort with insurgents then they are placing themselves in risk, however; you haven't proven this, and don't even seem to know the names of those American's you are condemning, and that ignorance only makes your smug remarks read as childish and silly. If you have no respect for the rule of law, I can understand this given we have a government that has spent close to 100 years demonstrating no respect for the rule of law. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and three wrongs don't make it any righter.

Originally posted by wrathchild
"American citizens working with terrorists"

That would classify them as "traitors"...punishible by death.

Been like that that for couple hundred years.

not really "news"

yes, punishable by death, after a trial by peers. similar to what hitler had the SS do. on top of being illegal and disturbing, it is also wrong.

hey lets put this little girl on the list:
www.fox8.com...
along with Kennedy, King, Lee Harvey Oswald, Yitzhak Rabin, that reporter that was investigating Clinton..the one they Arkensided...what was his name?

what did Obama do while working for the CIA before he was a politition?
in places like Pakistan ?( he said he was there then)
talk to (help) people who make IEDs?

the Israelis have said they can bump off people when ever and where ever
they want....like that american on the flotilla...
hey according to Obama
Israel can bump off Americans and its OK...
man is that linp or what?

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by wrathchild
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Agreed...but these people have made themselves an enemy of the state...

put themselves in the same "cross-hairs" as insurgents planting IEDs...and we have all seen those videos.

no difference.....other than the state department should not be publicly bragging about who they are gonna kill...that part is wrong.

Terrorist can mean anything - when opposing the govt is terrorism, most of ATS goes on the list.

I think, you haven't.