Mortal fear of the federal government isn’t just for the tinfoil hat set anymore — not now that the Obama Regime has authorized extrajudicial executions of American citizens on American soil using drones. Even the normally subservient toadies at NBC are alarmed:
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” [PDF available here] introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
“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 memo states.
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Note that a new study funded in part by Homeland Security has recently characterized those who are “reverent of individual liberty” and/or “suspicious of centralized federal authority” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists. The pieces are in place for the federal government to assassinate you for believing in the principles this country was founded on. The judicial system need not be involved.
According to the memo, assassination by drone may be authorized if arresting the
patriot terrorist would pose an “undue risk” to government personnel. Whether they will call in a drone strike on your house because you went to a Tea Party event and have a CCW depends on how far this Hopey Changey thing is allowed to go.
These developments fit smoothly among other harbingers of tyranny listed by Doug Ross:
Anyone still wonder why the Democrats are pushing a gun grab?
On tips from Bob Roberts, wingmann, St. Gilbert, IslandLifer, The Only Other Conservative in Seattle, and Sean C.