It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:48 AM
Many people that voted and followed the President Elect down his path thought that this

"a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before"

Was the new political firebrand we where getting, that CHANGE was going to usher out the

secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,"

However the Memo spoken of and as yet unreleased, in the DOJs and White house vetted decision to strike American citizens without 5th amendment Due Process is leaving a bad taste in some mouths.

I will admit this memo was in relation to the orders for Anwar al-Awlaki, however what else is in this memo and how far reaching are these "Rules of Citizen dismissal" lets call them.. my own words not the article.

Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny.

I will leave it at this, the Change we have gotten isn't what we thought it was going to be.. I think it is time to read the fine print on every candidate look at their past policies and then make an educated decision and not get swept up by rhetoric.

"But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

After the "Bust Obama Haters" website release Iam beginning to wonder about what exactly will happpen to anyone that does speak...ohhh say like me....We are on a terrible road when citizenry is targeted and Due Process on the chopping block.
edit on 12/08/11 by LanternOfDiogenes because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM
Of course they're not going to show it.
No real legal reason exists for it.
There's plenty of PR reasons though - they feel it will make them "look tough" on terror.
Sorry, it fails on that count, What it does make them look like is lawless thugs.
Don't expect the citizens to adhere to the very laws the administration balks at.
This is murder of an American citizen for "speech and thought crimes"
I doubt it will be the last.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

All I can say Ask... Is I hope that is not our future... because if that is our path then the USA we once knew is no longer, what will come next... who knows... I for one am a little apprehensive. Where did my First amendment rights go...and when can I expect the 2nd Am collection teams to knock on my door to remove my firearms.
To Quote Doc (Keifer Sutherland) from Young Guns "Jesus, this County needs a hero"

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:27 PM
Why are people even bothering to complain? Do you not realize that just about anyone can be labeled a "terrorist" according to the DHS. Thus once labeled, your so called rights went out the window. The USA as a respectable nation died years ago. I'm not saying that Anwar al-Awlaki was not affiliated with Al Qaeda but did he actively commit terrorist acts or did he just preach? If it's the latter then anytime a speaker or politician to include a head of state speaks out against any other nation and its overthrow or destruction, should they then be dealt with in like manor? As they by their own words are admitting that they are a terrorist and promote terrorism. Should they then be held to this standard they might well hold their tongue.

Because there is such a thing a diplomatic immunity, politicians and heads of state can literally get away with murder, theft, fraud and just about everything else with no accountability. Now that Obama has decided that he has the right to kill a U.S. citizen without due process of law (murder), there is no one safe place in the U.S. or elsewhere on earth. On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.". It is now official, U.S. citizens are legitimate targets for assassination, the precedent, Anwar al-Awlaki. It's sad, the U.S. public approves of such action and have no room to complain when it happens to them.
edit on 10/3/2011 by pstrron because: Correct spelling

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:12 AM
yeah that nobel peace prize winner sure deserved that title

killing americans whenever and whereever they feel like it?

very dangeous indeed say one wrong word and "thats all she wrote".

a constitutional lawyer should know better but wait for it

bang your dead no judge no jury no trial no crap

ugh your dead.

edit on 4-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:23 AM
I think that we are kinda missing the point here, I am no fan of the Obama administration by any means. But what we have on the surface is the case of a traitor.

a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state
guess So by what we can verify he meets the criteria. So what we have is the consequence of his actions leading to his demise.
Now understandably this is a conspiracy site so of course what the truth is will be debated till the cows come home. So by what little we know this is not a case of the administration just killing a citizen, but a traitor being put down. Now I must go shower since I feel dirty now defending the big O's actions.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:28 AM
So is it a matter of perception, for the circumstances? Who's perception? And why didn't this "secret" memo pop up a week and a half ago?

Secret memo my a$$. It's like my decoder ring can give me a "one up" power on whatever you have, just so I win and you shut up.

Who will be the next victim of the "secret memo"? Maybe you?

new topics

top topics


log in