“It turns out the (Obama) administration
has more blood on its hands than many thought.”
Liz Wahl explains.
Obama’s kill list revealed RTAmerica
(…) the White House has denied none of this. The president meets every Tuesday morning with a select group of military, intelligence, national security and, occasionally, political advisers and reviews the background and photos of persons in foreign countries whom he hates or fears, some of whom are Americans. He then personally decides whom among them to kill. Then he dispatches civilian agents of the government, no doubt the CIA, to do the killing using drones. He uses the CIA to do this because if he used the military, federal law requires public reporting of that use and, eventually, congressional approval. Some of the killings have taken place in Yemen, a country that has welcomed them, and some in Pakistan, a country that has condemned them. We are at war with neither. Andrew P. Napolitano
Squealing Versus Killing
by Andrew P. Napolitano
June 14, 2012
If you are still listening to those in the political class who are falling over each other to condemn leaks from the government to the media, you’d think the leaks had revealed private information in which the public has no legitimate interest, or perhaps a planned secret government mission to rescue innocents. Neither is the case.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress, most of them from the House and Senate intelligence committees, have blasted the White House for leaking to The New York Times and others the existence of President Obama’s secret kill list and his cyber-warfare against Iran. According to those doing the blasting, the leaks were made in order to bolster the president’s war-on-terror credentials with voters in anticipation of an onslaught against those credentials by Gov. Mitt Romney in the coming fall presidential campaign.
So, who has violated the Constitution and federal law, who has caused more harm and who has performed more of a disservice to the nation: those who leaked the truth to the media, or the president, who caused death and destruction among those he hates and fears?
Continue reading the COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano58.1.html
Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.
Copyright © 2012 Andrew P. Napolitano
Drone Killings a Sexual Thrill for Obama
June 6, 2012
In an interview published June 4 with his source “White House Insider,” (WHI) blogger Ulsterman (UM) points to facts long-known among insiders, regarding Obama’s obsessive sexual stimulation from viewing and reviewing film footage of the drone killings he has ordered — reminiscent of Hitler’s orders that the torture-executions of the July, 1944 coup plotters be filmed for his enjoyment. Hitler’s obessions of this sort were far milder and better-controlled, however. For comparison with Obama’s degree of deviancy one must go back to his examplar, the Roman emperor Nero, as Lyndon LaRouche pointed out on April 11, 2009.
WHI: Obama loves them drones. He has made them a personal priority above all else….
It’s what has been brewin’ for well over a year now — its causing all kinds of hell between the administration — the military — infighting and concern among the staff — even Jarrett don’t have a handle on all of it. Even she is not entirely comfortable with how the president has sunk his teeth into the drones — the kill list. She’s not bothered by their use specifically — she’s more — I would guess she’s more worried over the political implications of Obama’s obsession — that eventually enough people will stand together and say ENOUGH….
So having Obama so oddly focused — not just focused — he gets excited — visually — the guy gets off on it and he ain’t even hiding that fact anymore. And some are repulsed by it. They’ve done video reviews you know of the missions. The drones. The kills.
UM: The president you mean? He watches videos of the drone attacks?
WHI: Yeah — like it was — like it was porn. I can’t emphasize… I don’t think I’m painting a clear enough picture here for you of how this thing has people really freaking out inside the administration…
The fact it’s gotten this bad — these drones — an American president who has the video sent up to his personal study so he can watch them over and over again — like I said — sh-t ain’t right. And more and more people are figuring that out — and that is what has Jarrett concerned. But even she — Obama won’t listen to her on this one….
He picks a name off a list — some of these people have been U.S. citizens — he picks that name off a list and orders the kill. Then he gets the video confirmation of the kill, and he watches it. Over and over and over again….
But now Barack Obama, he’s judge and jury. With a pointing of a finger to names on a list, Barack Obama gets to play God. No day in court. No guarantee innocent people won’t be killed as well, and they have been killed. Children. Women. Over and over again. And this president — he has that knowledge when he watches the kill confirmations. And he watches it over and over again. These are high-tech snuff films — a multi-billion dollar snuff program — and he gets off on it.
She’s gotta try and contain it — but the president’s obsession is becoming too much to do that. The knowledge of it — its getting out now. Reaching other world leaders — it ain’t good. Even if it might give us a political advantage — you want sickening?
Those drones — their domestic use — don’t think he ain’t thought about it. A lot.
You see, Obama — he don’t trust the military. Not all of the — not many of them. But he trusts those drones, now don’t he? Don’t take him having to trust some military official to order troops to carry out an order inside the United States. It’s just inputting a bit of data — and the push of a button, right? And keep the f-cking military out of that equation there. Move the program — attach it directly to the White House. Make it part of Homeland Security, right? Simple as that. One appropriations bill — just one — and its done.
Unjustified killing: UN wants US drone attacks explained
19 June, 2012
A UN investigator has called on Washington to provide justification for the increasingly widespread use of military drones to carry out targeted killings. He says drone attacks, which take innocent civilian lives, may be violating international law.
The US military and CIA use drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. Washington should clarify the legal basis for the policy of killing suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and associates rather than trying to capture them, Christof Heyns, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, said in a report. The 28-page document addressed to the UN Human Rights Council was released ahead of the body’s debate on the issue in Geneva.
“The government should clarify the procedures in place to ensure that any targeted killing complies with international humanitarian law and human rights and indicate the measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties, as well as the measures in place to provide prompt, thorough, effective and independent public investigation of alleged violations,” the report says.
“Although figures vary widely with regard to drone attack estimates, all studies concur on one important point: there has been a dramatic increase in their use over the past three years,“ Heyns said.
The UN official cites figures from the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, which said American drone strikes killed at least 957 people in Pakistan in 2010 alone. Out of the thousands killed by drones since 2004 roughly 20 per cent are believed to be civilians.
“Disclosure of these killings is critical to ensure accountability, justice and reparation for victims or their families,” the rapporteur says.
Heyns stressed that international humanitarian law requires that every effort made to arrest a suspect and any use of force comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality. He added Washington has failed to respond satisfactorily to concerns voiced by his predecessor Philip Alston, in a 2009 report.
“The Special Rapporteur again requests the Government to clarify the rules that it considers to cover targeted killings … (and) reiterates his predecessor’s recommendation that the government specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture ‘human targets’ and whether the State in which the killing takes places has given consent,” Heyns said.
Drone attacks also create problems for Washington’s relations with its allies. They were one of the major points of conflict between the US and Pakistan, with the row resulting in disruption of supplies through Pakistani territory for American troops deployed in Afghanistan.
Pakistani Ambassador Zamir Akram spoke earlier on Monday during the opening session of the UN human rights body, saying his government considers the use of drones on its soil illegal, counterproductive and as violating Pakistan’s sovereignty.
“Thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been murdered in these indiscriminate attacks,” he said.
* Image reference:
Predator drone observes Afghanistan -The file has been modified from its original state
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
The publishing of this image does not imply that the author endorse this article.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in these articles and videos are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CanadaNewsLibre. The contents of these articles and videos are of sole responsibility of the author(s). CanadaNewsLibre will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements.
The CNL grants permission to cross-post original CanadaNewsLibre articles and videos on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed.
http://canadanewslibre contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
ↄ⃝ Copyleft CanadaNewsLibre 2012