It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How Americans are put on Obama's Kill List

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This description of how the U.S. government decides which Americans are up for extra-judicial murder was kind of interesting.

www.reuters.com...

They make the decisions about who to kill at lower levels so the President can maintain plausible deniability.




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Of course this is where our planet is heading-into chaos. Everything we had is gone, and it is all changing.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by samlf3rd
Of course this is where our planet is heading-into chaos. Everything we had is gone, and it is all changing.

Nothing is really changing and nothing is really gone..Laws like this are only words and words are only worth the water they hold. We have a choice and they know that passing laws like this is the most bogus form of oppresion ever created.
The world is forgetting what a government is, they have no right to do this stuff.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Under what jurisdiction could he possibly carry out such atrocities? What makes him any different from a mobster or the drug cartels in Mexico? And how in the world is he not under international investigation for murder? We may have to accept it here in the US, but the rest of the world doesn't.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharliePrime
This description of how the U.S. government decides which Americans are up for extra-judicial murder was kind of interesting.

Yet the Reuters article you use as a source, suggests that there has only been one American on the list, Awlaki. (And don't you think calling it "murder" is jumping to conclusions? Reuters doesn't call it that.)

www.reuters.com...

There is a much more thorough explanation of the process from the New York Times, which describes a fifty page memo discussing the legal issues of the case.Drone kill memo
Among other things, the memo

also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.



They make the decisions about who to kill at lower levels so the President can maintain plausible deniability.
As the article points out, the lower level discussions only deal with non-American militants. And how does plausible deniabilty enter into this? Obama brags about the drone kills and the SEAL attacks, why would he want to deny them?

I'm afraid you've left me confused. Would you mind trying to explain your point to me again? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11
Under what jurisdiction could he possibly carry out such atrocities?

Generally speaking, in any military theater of operations. More specifically, in a country harboring the organization(s) responsible for the 9/11 attacks, especially if said country is either unwilling or (like Yemen) incapable of capturing a target alive. Mind you, it's not necessary to attempt to capture an enemy combatant alive--but they did try, before they went kinetic.

One might also argue that the National Security Act authorizes covert action in any country other than the US, and the UN Charter recognizes (not grants) the inherent right of self-defense, so the jurisdiction to engage in defensive covert operations extends across the entire globe outside US borders. The only place where Obama does not have such jurisdiction is within the US.


What makes him any different from a mobster or the drug cartels in Mexico?

Mobsters and drug cartels in Mexico violate the law and hurt innocent people in order to make money. Obama did not. One might argue that Awlaki was innocent in a legal sense, but that doesn't matter, as legal guilt and innocence are never adjudicated before engaging a target. The only thing that matters is that it's a lawful target, engaged in a lawful manner.


And how in the world is he not under international investigation for murder? We may have to accept it here in the US, but the rest of the world doesn't.

Under investigation by whom? The Yemenis? They're the only country that could claim a murder took place, and they wanted Awlaki dead just as much as we did. The ICC? Good luck, we're not a member.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
well aside from millions of Afghans & Iraqi civilians,

and Libyans in the growing thousands,

who else in particular are on the List?

Ted Osman.

Samir Khan

who else?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CharliePrime
 


This is fascinating.
Thank you for putting this up, Charlie.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


Hi, ignant,

Thanks for another mind-stretcher of a post. Please help. The New York Times article indicates Khan was NOT on the kill list. Ted Olson? The Bush Solicitor General is on the kill list? That makes no sense. Surely if we can get Bin Laden, there's no trouble in putting Olson away. Yet he's still walking around. As far as killing the others, they're not on anybody's kill list. You know that.

If you want to say you don't like American tactics in the Middle-East, OK, fine. But using the kill list as a segue just makes conversation more difficult and clouds the issue.

Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Thanks for another mind-stretcher of a post. Please help. The New York Times article indicates Khan was NOT on the kill list. Ted Olson? The Bush Solicitor General is on the kill list? That makes no sense.

Actually, he said Ted Osman. He was probably thinking of Tim Osman, an important figure in certain branches of Truther mythology. Tim Osman was purportedly an actor and CIA employee who portrayed Osama bin Laden, or Osama's cover name when he visited the US on some kind of CIA-Al Qaeda get-to-know-you junket. Both versions of the Tim Osman legend circulate.

originaldialogue.blogspot.com...
whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Thank you, thank you, thank you. I screwed up and I'm grateful to you for catching it. Thanks also for the links, there is so much I don't know.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Thank you, thank you, thank you. I screwed up and I'm grateful to you for catching it. Thanks also for the links, there is so much I don't know.

You're welcome. Don't feel bad about missing it--the Tim Osman narratives are kind of minor, even among Truthers. But I can see how you'd read that as Ted Olson. He's a minor villain in the Truther pantheon, too, because he sacrificed his wife and/or lied about the phone calls. Someone who believes in Tim Osman might think Obama would want to kill Olson to tie up loose ends.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It wouldnt matter if there was any legal ground for what they are doing because no judge would be able to put an injunction on it and the executive branch is great at labeling anyone who questions these things conspiracy theorists....then the rest of the Kool-aid drinkers like to just ignore it



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   


The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.


What happened to the promise of transparency in this administration?

I wanted to believe him,sure sounded good, should of known it was a lie.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dezertdogWhat happened to the promise of transparency in this administration?


It may surprise you to learn this, but politicians very often lie during election campaigns, and have no intention of keeping their campaign promises after gaining Office.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join