An Imminent Threat Is An Imminent Threat Is An imminent Threat
Reported by Olivier Knox, "The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is "unable or willing” to do so."
The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”
White House defends drone-war killing of Americans
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 10 hrs ago.
The United States has the right to defend itself against any imminent threat, and will do so, has always been “The Policy.” Why should there be a concern when we use the Term "Drone?" Most importantly why the attacks on Barack Obama, and not George Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Roland Reagan and so on?
I support the ACLU in spirit and out of pocket, but I have a concern when the group spends a lot of resources on the subject to protect our civil liberties, that has never been our right or liberty to plan, organize or bring harm to fellow Americans?
“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.”
We do have a concern when these decisions are made by data applications that relive the decision maker of a moral and ethical responsibility of a death warrant, without "Face to Face" intelligence briefings with live warm blooded trained qualified Intelligence officers, which was the case prior to April 2009. At that time in history, all Americans even the presidents were "in theory" subjects to be a victim of Solid State!
A victim of “Solid State,” now that is scary, that is wrong, and I believe that is root of the cry by ACLU and Citizens just like me. Who in their right minds can reason that a person, or group of persons, who are imminent threats to the lives of fellow Americans should have their civil liberties protected, so they can take the lives of fellow Americans?
The United States has the right to defend itself against any imminent threat, and will do so, has always been “The Policy.”
There is still is a problem of data applications and the manipulation of these programs and use non-lethal or bio-lethal weapons on United States citizens at the state level living in America, which should ring every Civil Right Activist Bell, especially those that have harmed by political, religious, irreligious, racial targeting such as in states like Texas!
I still have several criminal complaints open that are valid and if not resolved by the Justice Department, the harm to myself and others in my state will continue and consequences are life threatening to innocent United States Citizens.
Why do we not see more attention from the public and Civil Rights organizations such as the ACLU on these concerns?
G. N. O'Dell 02/2/2013
I have delivered my comments to all my state representatives, and I believe the state neglects the rights or persons living in the border zone of "Tejas" as history has drawn this map for me.................
Texans have a Constitutional Right to bring their concerns before the legislatures as line item on the Legislative session, and I as will as thousands of others are concerned about the discrimination and abuse brought to the citizen South, South West of San Antonio, a line of distinction drawn by our state and approved by our U.S. Texas Senators to divide Texas into "A No Civil Rights and Liberties Zone" and to north "All the Rights and Privileges Zone" of the of the Lone Star State.
My reasoning, it is time to succeeded from Texas and become our State of Union (The United States of America) with our own representation, which has been on legislative agenda throughout the history of Texas.
The first historic move was actually moving the State Capitol from San Antonio to Austin Texas. In 1967, the line was drawn dividing Texas from North and South as two separate states, it was not approved by small margin of votes.