When Congress authorized the deployment of some
30,000 drones over U.S. skieswith the passage of the
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act in
2012 many civil liberties groups, privacy advocates and Americans
expressed their concerns about the possibility that these surveillance
tools could be used within the borders of the United States much like
they are on the battlefields of the middle east where scores of innocent
civilians are killed almost every day as collateral damage in direct
strikes against alleged terrorists.
Those fears are very quickly being realized not as possibilities, but actualities.
In response to questions recently voiced by Senator Rand Paul about
drone strikes being used against American citizens on American soil
without charge or trial, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a public
statement indicating that the government has the right to use armed
unmanned aerial vehicles should “extraordinary circumstances” arise.
Holder writes:
On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan
requesting additional information concerning the Administration’s views
about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force,
such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without a
trial.”
As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.
As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where
well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the
best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long
history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals
located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its
interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely
hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever
have to confront.
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary
circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the
Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President
to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of
the United States.
For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to
authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the
homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones
suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
Full Text (PDF)
The official position of the United States government is that a
drone, or any military asset for that matter, can be deployed by the
President of the United States or his surrogates without regard to the
sixth amendment of the US Constitution, which requires that citizens be
afforded the right of facing their accusers, to call witnesses and to be
tried by a jury of their peers.
Senator Paul responded to the Attorney General’s comments and warned of the dangers of the new policy:
“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out
the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American
soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due
process rights of all Americans.”
Based on Eric Holder’s memo, the President, and therefore agencies
under his control, do believe that they have the authority to use lethal
force against those identified as “terrorists.”
As the Attorney General noted in his letter to Senator Paul, there
are hundreds of Americans that have been tried and convicted as
terrorists, and thousands more that have been identified as terrorists
by government officials.
U.S. attorney Anne Tompkins recently prosecuted Bernard Von Nothaus
for minting silver coins he branded as “liberty dollars.” After Vot
Nothaus was convicted, Tompkins
referred to his actions as a unique form of domestic terrorism.
Local law enforcement officials attending DHS sponsored training
events have widely reported that the definitions for “terrorist”
activity are becoming very broad, as outlined by one police officer at
James Rawles’
Survival Blog:
During the past several years, I have witnessed a
dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training. Law
enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a
federally dominated model of complete social control. Most training I
have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
No matter what topic the training session concerns, every DHS
sponsored course I have attended over the past few years never fails to
branch off into warnings about potential domestic terrorists in the
community.
…
So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist?
Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that
qualify:
- Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
- Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
- Survivalist literature (fictional books such as “Patriots” and “One Second After” are mentioned by name)
- Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
- Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
- Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
- Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
- Homeschooling
- Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
- Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
Earlier this year a kindergarten student was suspended from school after
officials reported that she made a terrorist threat utilizing a Hello Kitty bubble gun.
The Attorney General of the United States of America just gave the President the go-ahead on domestic drone strikes.
Under the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, no
Constitutional protections need be afforded to American citizens, thus,
anyone can be classified as a domestic terrorist at the President’s
discretion.
If you mint a silver coin, stockpile food, refuse to turn in your
high capacity magazine, voice beliefs that may be considered subversive
to the government, or have a toy resembling a gun, you maybe labeled a
terrorist.
As such, you can also be targeted for extermination.
No comments:
Post a Comment