Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated

OK, can you refute the article? Are the quotes false or taken out of context?

The New York Times:

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” said Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, in a speech at Yale Law School.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...th-terrorism-ties-can-be-targeted-in-strikes/


InfoWars:

In a speech at Yale Law School, Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, also said that US courts do not have the right to review such cases, or pass judgment on decisions taken by the Executive branch on such matters.

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” said Johnson.

http://www.infowars.com/pentagon-sa...-of-supporting-terrorism-can-be-assassinated/


Some people are just so blinded by hatred for Alex Jones that they won't even look at what's posted.

It's understandable.

The truth is scary, and this is some deadly, killing fields, death camp stuff that is now on the books, a matter of settled US law, and that scares the hell out people and makes them angry as well.

Not angry at the government of course, but angry at who exposed the lie and shattered their comfortable world view, where everything was basically A-OK and just needed a little fine tuning.

"If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh, otherwise, they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde.
 
I wish these articles would not refer to Anwar Al Awlaki at all. Such references immediately give Neocons the "but he's a terrorist, they wouldn't do that to just anybody" argument. I need articles that declare the government's position without reference to Awlaki.

Don't worry, I'm sure you will be getting some accounts of terrorist farmers getting droned real soon.
 
I wish these articles would not refer to Anwar Al Awlaki at all. Such references immediately give Neocons the "but he's a terrorist, they wouldn't do that to just anybody" argument. I need articles that declare the government's position without reference to Awlaki.

And I need articles that don't come from Infowars. While I find them informative, if I link them on other forums, I get the "conspiracy theory " label.
 
The New York Times:



http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...th-terrorism-ties-can-be-targeted-in-strikes/


InfoWars:



http://www.infowars.com/pentagon-sa...-of-supporting-terrorism-can-be-assassinated/


Some people are just so blinded by hatred for Alex Jones that they won't even look at what's posted.

It's understandable.

The truth is scary, and this is some deadly, killing fields, death camp stuff that is now on the books, a matter of settled US law, and that scares the hell out people and makes them angry as well.

Not angry at the government of course, but angry at who exposed the lie and shattered their comfortable world view, where everything was basically A-OK and just needed a little fine tuning.

"If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh, otherwise, they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde.

images
 
read the NYTimes article.

freaking frak frick frock fruck.

i know it's been blatant and i know it's getting more blatant.

these are the policy makers, folks. this douchebag speaking to fellow douchebags at Yale.. these are the policy makers. military and civilian policy makers.

mark it. and mark up.
 
It's no coincidence that as Zionist power has grown within the United States, the US has become less like the US, and more akin to the police state of Israel.
 
Thought this was vital to this thread:

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Threat......
 
Last edited:
So does the "threat" have to come from the potential perpetrator?

Let me reword to restate one of the many translations of this definition.

The calculated use of potential unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to intimidate society in the pursuit of goals that are both political and ideological.
 
The worst part is they are developing ALL their pieces, we don't even know where are pieces are.
 
Accused not convicted, just accused.

hey you, your a terrorist. string him up.

Goodby Liberty, we loved you.
'twas nice knowing you. Hope you aren't "disappeared" too soon. You and I and everyone on these boards, AFAIK, are suspected terrorists by the regime's standards. :(
 
Everyone but the plants you mean. There is little doubt they are amongst us... maybe I am one... maybe you are one...
 
Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated

Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated



Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated



Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated



Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated



Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated


Feel terrorized yet?

Haa Haa. This seems like some sort of concept that could back fire.
 
Pentagon Says US Citizens Accused Of Supporting Terrorism Can Be Assassinated

Former FBI special agent John Guandolo says Obama's ties to agents for the Muslim Brotherhood are even more extensive.

"Today in the White House, there are three members of the Muslim Brotherhood that influence Obama's policy," he told the audience gathered for an IdeaCity conference. "One is Rashad Hassan, who is the American ambassador to the 52-nation Organization of Islamic (Conference)."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337321#ixzz1WIFcJVHE
 
Last edited:
Back
Top