Home | About | Donate

Obama Administration Changed the Rationale for Why Assassinations Don’t Violate the Assassination Prohibition


#1


#2

The combination of military muscle combined with major material riches is often lethal.

So when Hitler's thugs began to show their martial muscle, the more darkly strategic thinkers recognized that rather than break laws, they'd need to convince the courts of the "rightness" of their agenda. The criminally-minded took over the legal institutions then... as now. (A parallel case can be made that rather than rob banks, robbers gained possession of banks to satisfy the same ends.)

There are always racist, narrow-minded ideologues in any society. Raising those individuals up by offering them high status positions can certainly help a cause.

My point is that there are many ominous parallels between the rise of the Third Reich and what passes for law, justice, and basic protocols within today's U.S.A.

So long as corrupt, morally barren court justices can give torture a legal veneer, or twist the meaning of the word imminent, they can legalize what no sane or just society would EVER regard as just.

To those of us who recognize 911's events for the false flag that they were, it's clear that all of the persons tortured along with those who stand accused...plus all of the persons who've reacted to the destruction of their homelands with defensive measures--only to be called enemy combatants and treated as such--are all caught in an apparent ring of Dante's extended Hell.

When individuals set up a false case for war, what is it that CAN be believed that comes from their lips, legal teams, or playbooks?


#3

Er, Judge Jon O. Newman wrote the opinion. Sarah Normand is the AUSA who participated in the ex parte hearing.