Susanne Posel
Attorney General Eric Holder has further clarified his comments to Senator Rand Paul in the letter he wrote a few days ago. When Holder spoke about the “extraordinary circumstances” in which President Obama could authorize “lethal force” be used on Americans in the US, he meant that Obama was empowered by the “2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (AUMF) to assign military to patrol American streets as a matter of routine. AUMF was a collaboration of the Congress and the US Armed Forces to battle against the attacks on 9/11. According to the text, the AUMF empowers the president when “acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad”, threatens national security and foreign policy with “grave acts of violence” then “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts” with the use of military force.

Jay Carney, White House press secretary said that “the president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.”

Paul went before the Senate earlier this week to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), saying: “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. I will speak today until the president responds.”

Regarding Obama’s answers to Paul about the right to murder Americans with “lethal force” such as drones, it was relayed that: “When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, ‘no.’ the president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet.

We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the president the — you know, they give him consideration; they say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. What I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government.”

Paul said that he would continue to vocally stand against Brennan’s nomination until the Obama administration confirmed that they would not use drones to kill Americans here in the US.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham spoke to the Senate yesterday against Paul’s filibuster; claiming that the 13 hour “rant” was disrespectful to the balance of government and Constitutional rights.

McCain retorted: “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids. I don’t think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.”

McCain agreed that the Senate should inquire into the Obama administration’s drone policy with regard to targeted killing, “but that conversation should not be talking about drones killing Jane Fonda and people in cafes. It should be all about what authority and what checks and balances should exist” in order to combat “an enemy that we know will be with us for a long time.”

Graham said that Paul’s questions to Obama were “offensive” and that he does “not believe that question deserves an answer; cheapens the debate.”

Graham, supporting Holder said: “I want to stand by you and the president to make sure we don’t criminalize the war and that the commander-in-chief continues to have the authority to protect us all . . . . a lot of my colleagues are well-meaning but there is only one commander-in-chief in our Constitution.”

Rand Paul and the Libertarian Movement have had a questionable financer.

Peter Thiel, the former owner of PayPal, has contributed to the Rand Paul for US Senate 2010 campaign; as well as Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign and the Committee to re-Elect Ron Paul.

As a self-proclaimed Libertarian activist, political and financial influence begins and ends in the Libertarian party with Thiel who was the biggest campaign contributor to Ron Paul. In fact, in February of this year, Thiel donated $1.7 million to the Edorse Liberty SuperPAC. Thiel’s contributions accounted for 75% of the 2.3 million collected by the Ron Paul campaign sponsor. Other donations by Thiel to Endorse Liberty were recorded as $150,000 and $750,000 as gifts to the organization.

One of the most influential positions that Thiel has held is having a seat on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. The Steering Committee governs the Bilderberg Group with an elected chairman. The Steering Committee also decides who is extended an invitation to attend Bilderberg Group meetings – based on “their experience, their knowledge, their standing and their contribution to the selected agenda.”

Source: Occupy Corporatism

Adauga un comentariu!

Apăsaţi aici pentru a anula un răspuns.

Nume (necesar)

E-mail (necesar dar nu va fi publicat)

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Marius Șerban Odată cu intrarea într-o nouă stare de criză, după ce tocmai am ieșit din una de alertă, pentru că, nu-i așa, starea de continuă criză este singura formulă prin care mai poate fi controlată cât de cât o populație debusolată, anomizată, se vântură tot felul de versiuni de proiecte de lege, prin care, […]

Cele mai multe dintre evenimentele majore ale ultimelor decenii au venit ca reactie la un eveniment precedent, de multe ori fals, o provocare menita a pregati opinia publica pentru ceea ce va urma. Comentatorii politici numesc astfel de evenimente inscenate – false flag – un steag fals. Cele mai clare exemple de atacuri inscenate sunt […]

“Alegerile” europarlamentare 2019, in fapt un jalnic exercitiu pseudoelectoral, reflecta cat se poate de clar faptul ca Romania este un stat esuat fara posibilitatea practica de a-si mai reveni. Asistam, de fapt, la o batalie intre diversele factiuni din serviciile secrete romanesti, in fapt doar niste reminiscente bolsevico-securistoide sau neomarxiste extrem de toxice, simple anexe […]

Michael Thomas “9/11 was an Anglo-American black operation executed in collusion with Israeli Secret Services and Saudi Arabian financiers.” — 9/11 Investigator. Undoubtedly the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington DC are the most misrepresented by officialdom in US history. Whereas the assassination of John F. Kennedy is now understood to have been […]