Americans as Military Targets

[Chris]

Americans as Military Targets

Americans as Military Targets
By Todd Strandberg

For the past several years, there has been a relentless attack on the civil rights of U.S. citizens. In the name of national security, the government is slowly creeping into all aspects of our lives. As long as the American people remain silent on this issue, the process will continue until there is no freedom left to lose.

The latest assault is the Fed's desire to classify some Americans as military targets. Lawyers for the Obama administration claimed at a recent national security conference that U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida. They can be indefinitely detained, sent to Guantanamo, or assassinated.

The CIA's killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida spokesmen, has triggered the debate. He died in a September 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. Al-Awlaki was never linked to any terrorist attack. He was killed because he was foolish enough to become a spokesperson for the al-Qaida movement.

The executive branch is qualified to make military battlefield decisions about who is an enemy agent. It's a no-brainer when you're dropping a bomb on a grass hut where known terrorists are believed to congregate. If an American citizen is in the hut, he made the wrong choice to be in the company of enemy forces. It becomes a different matter when you're talking about "taking out" the leader of a hate group here in the U.S. This is where the court system needs to come in.

There is an effort by several U.S. senators to make America itself part of a battlefield. A group led by senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is backing a bill that would authorize the indefinite detention of Americans by the military without charges. A viral YouTube video shows John McCain justifying sending Americans to Guantanamo. Here is the link: YouTube (John McCain)

I'm amazed that so many Republicans are joining hands with Democrats to support this type of legislation. Some of these people are so blinded by the War on Terror that they would put their own mothers in Guantanamo if it was a requirement to pass a new security law.

We're going down a slippery slope by allowing Americans to be targeted in the name of national security. We could soon have agents showing up at people's doorsteps in the middle of the night to arrest them, and just like in the soviet Union, the agents won't be required to explain why the citizens are being detained.

It's very dangerous thing give the president the power to decide who is a target. Obama currently has seven Republican candidates who are trying to remove him from power via the ballot box. Obama might decide that having anyone but himself in the Oval Office would threaten our nation's security, forcing him to arrest these Republican "terrorists." This example is silly, but most dictators have always thought such notions to be true.

The Founding Fathers had a good reason to put limits on the federal government. They had just come from a land ruled by kings who saw liberty as a vice. The framers knew that if you removed the restriction on the government, it would grow like a cancer. Washington has become one giant tumor with one main purpose: to grab more power.

A couple of weeks ago, a news report said that Egypt's secret police was renaming itself "Homeland Security." The new name must have been an homage to its American namesake. Since most communist Soviet states contain the word "democratic," I would assume the devil has a flair for ironic humor.

I don't know why the American people have become so indifferent to the efforts to steal their civil liberties. Once freedom is lost, a huge price tag comes with getting it back. Because we are close to the end-time hour, I don't think enough time is left to redeem the rights we've already lost.

The day may soon come when we no longer recognize America as the land of the free. I'm not all that worried about reaching that stage. The loss of freedom just reminds me that my true citizenship is not in this sin-stained world.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20).

-- Todd

[mattfivefour]

The day may soon come when we no longer recognize America as the land of the free. I'm not all that worried about reaching that stage. The loss of freedom just reminds me that my true citizenship is not in this sin-stained world.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20).

Rather an odd conclusion to an article whose entire theme was watch out because we're losing our American liberties!

[Robert]

Rather an odd conclusion to an article whose entire theme was watch out because we're losing our American liberties!

I would have to agree; either we are worried about losing them or we're not!

[Sean Osborne]

There is so much ill-informed nonsense in this article that I'm not sure where to begin critiquing it.

Oh well, gotta start somewhere, so why not at the beginning.

For the past several years, there has been a relentless attack on the civil rights of U.S. citizens. In the name of national security, the government is slowly creeping into all aspects of our lives. As long as the American people remain silent on this issue, the process will continue until there is no freedom left to lose.

Let's see, can I freely worship my God? Yes, as the Lord instructed I can go into my closet and have a conversation with the Father any time. I can do the same on a mountain top or in a desert or in a boat out on a lake. So Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. I can also speak freely, write freely, assemble and petition. All of my 1st Amendment rights are intact. I can own a gun if I so desire. 2nd Amendment - check. Uncle Sam isn't housing soldiers in my house, they're quartered in military housing my tax dollars paid for all over the globe. 3rd Amendment - check. And so it goes with Amendments 4 through 8 which are just as intact as the first three. Amendments 9 and 10 are under legal assault via federal encroachment, but would they not be if We The People demonstrated that we have a spine and decided we really wanted to keep what is ours. However, nothing has really been lost yet.

The latest assault is the Fed's desire to classify some Americans as military targets. Lawyers for the Obama administration claimed at a recent national security conference that U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida. They can be indefinitely detained, sent to Guantanamo, or assassinated.

If you are an American citizen working for, or with, or supporting the Islamonazi terrorists of Al Qaeda in any manner whatsoever YOU ARE a domestic enemy of these United States, YOU ARE a terrorist who goal it is to MURDER innocent fellow citizens, damage property and cause great economic harm for the sake of a demonically-inspired, non-existent, false god of foreign origin. YOU ARE A TRAITOR. You are no different than Johnny 'Taliban' Walker, Adam Gadahn or the late-not-so-great Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi (or as Todd spells it, Al-Awlaki). YOU ARE an enemy combatant who has declared war on his own country and you should be shot on sight or blown up by a Predator drone because you have forfeited any right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness through your own actions. Period.

The CIA's killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida spokesmen, has triggered the debate. He died in a September 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. Al-Awlaki was never linked to any terrorist attack. He was killed because he was foolish enough to become a spokesperson for the al-Qaida movement.

This is patentable nonsense. Debate? What is there to debate about this Todd? Duh. Not linked to any terrorist attack? How utterly uninformed and ignorant you are brother Todd. You say there's no link between Anwar al-Aulaqi and Major Nidal Malik Hasan of the Ft. Hood Massacre infamy? Or how about his Islamic mentoring of the 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour, or his direct ties to the WTC attack of February 1993 led by "the Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman? Or how about his direct ties to the "Christmas Day 2009 Al Qaeda Bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his PETN underwear? Are you unaware that the NSA intercepted the communications between them and that Umar traveled to Yemen to meet with al-Aulaqi in preparation for his suicide mission over Detroit that Christmas Day? There is no excuse for writing such blatantly ignorant garbage as this as the backbone of this article.

Todd, try again some time, but please, post another article only after doing a modicum of due diligent research as opposed to doing absolutely zero in the instance of this article.