Back in September of 2011 Barack Obama ordered a drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a radicalized American citizen hiding in Yemen–he was eventually killed in a drone attack. At the time I thought this killing was justified because he decided to take up arms against the United States, but I was conflicted because he was not on a battlefield fighting against America at the time of his execution. This is what I wrote back then:
The most obvious difference is the fact that Shahzad was an American on American soil while al-Awaki is an American hiding overseas. Yet al-Awaki is not in the war zone and is not actively fighting against the United States. Shouldn’t he then be targeted for arrest, read his rights, and then given a fair trial by jury. This is the argument that the left will make.
He, much like Faisal Shahzad, Nadal Hasan, and Richard Reid, is an American citizen and the constitution grants the people the right to a trial by jury no matter how heinous the crime. But that constitutionally guaranteed right was denied him and I believe this is a slippery slope.
There is a grey area here and today the Obama regime has tried to defend the authorization to kill American citizens. Eric Holder has said this is a justifiable position for the Obama regime to take:
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force
But here is where it gets real worrisome:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future
The Obama regime doesn’t need any proof that an American citizen is about to do anything wrong before ordering the killing. So enemy combatants captured on the battlefield–like those held at GITMO–are granted constitutional rights and are to be given a trial by jury while American citizens are denied this very same constitutional right? Does anyone else have a problem with this? Somehow capturing and getting information from enemy combatants through torture is inhuman and beneath the United States but killing United States citizens is not?
Barack Obama does not see a double standard in this, Jay Carney stated that these strike are “legal, ethical, and wise.” And when Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (with the help of the Republican led house) he deemed the United States as a battlefield on the war on terror. So is it out of the realm of possibility that drone strikes could be ordered on American citizens on United States soil? And whom exactly does Barack Obama feel is an enemy to the United States?
According to the now infamous “right wing extremist” report that list includes returning United States veterans, pro-life people, pr0-second amendment people, anti-illegal immigration people, and pro-small government believers on the list as possible domestic terrorists.
And then when you take into account the fact that Barack Obama signed into law the FAA Re-authorization Act (again with the help of the Republican led House) which authorized the use of up to 30,ooo drones flying over United States cities, and the fact that Homeland Security has ordered 7,000 assault weapons and millions of rounds of hollow point bullets, which cannot be used in combat and are not used for target practice, which means there is only one legitimate use for these bullets and you have to wonder what exactly the Obama regime is preparing for.
Many out there will think this is tinfoil hat material but when you look at all of these issues together, rather than as separate issues, it certainly appears as if Barack Obama is preparing for a domestic uprising–possibly after the economy finally collapses, which it will if we do not change our ways.
If you enjoyed this post you can read more by Steve Dennis at America’s Watchtower.