I think the precedence has already been set:
Transcript of Executive Order 9066: Resulting in the Relocation of Japanese (1942)
Executive Order No. 9066
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby
authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated
Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military
Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or
leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary
of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded there from, such transportation, food, shelter, and other
accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to
accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and
restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of
the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.
Seems to me it was all about “territory” and “restricted access” and was wonderfully ambiguous. I think the devil is in the details, actually
and the declaration of the US Homeland as a battlefield allows a great deal of interpretation and also puts us firmly under martial law.
Let’s look at the meaning of the term battlefield in the recent war on terror.
This classification is essentially instating martial law on US ground and, by association, subjecting us to discriminatory action by military leaders.
That is essentially what Executive Order No. 9066 said way back in ’42. This line jumps out:
“I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any
designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate
Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain
in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.”
I believe this is slight of hand, as the definition of “enemy Combatant” and “terrorist” has expanded to include, well, almost everyone these
days, even those who’s actions prevent people from going to work or making money under the pretense that work=taxes=government funding=military
What, Mr Obama, is a terrorist? (Note how the “extremist” meme creeps in here):
“The bottom line: Islam and terrorism are intertwined. America will never understand its enemy, an enemy dedicated to its destruction, unless it
comes to grips with that fact.
Yet, the Obama Administration is rewriting the official terrorism glossary to erase any Islam-terror connection.
"Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear," John Brennan, the President's closest
adviser on counter-terrorism, told an audience at the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Nor do we describe our enemy as
jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
And Brennan added this: "The President's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a
tactic. Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify
terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with
Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
Then he listed an Obama national security priority: "This includes addressing the political, economic and social forces that can make some people fall
victim to the cancer of violent extremism .... And I think there's more work we need to do to understand the psychology behind terrorism. But a lot of
times, the psychology is affected by the environment that has those political, social, economic factors that contribute to that."
Sooooo…what’s an “extremist”?
Just about anybody that doesn’t believe in the status quo.
Is the Occupy crowd considered terroristic or extremist?
What about Christians, or Preppers, or Constitutionalists, or Libertarians, or Ron Paul supporters…yep. They are gonna use this to try and
“disappear” all opposition in the coming months.
Here's a look behind the curtain:
From the previous law link...
“Returned to the battlefield” is unambiguous, and describes—clearly and without
qualification—an act of aggression or war against the United States, or at least against its
interests. In contrast, it is not clear on its face whether the use of the phrase “anti-coalition
militant activities” is intended to embrace only overt, military, hostile action taken by the former
detainee, or rather to extend to include activities that are political in nature. Further review of the
preamble and the news release as a whole reveals that it is this latter meaning that prevails—and
thus the shift from “return to the battlefield,” to “return to militant activities” reflects a wholesale
retreat from the claim that thirty (30) ex-detainees have taken up arms against the United States
or its coalition partners."
edit on 29-11-2011 by PapaKrok because: (spelling)
edit on 29-11-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)