Veils Cast Over Truth – Terror, 'Khorosan' and Islam

By Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon

What’s in a name? No! We are not discussing the rose, rather Islam. More specifically, who “IS” the “Khorosan Group?” Invent a name, hide the past. That is what resulted from an aide referring to the location this group from al Qaeda in Afghanistan came from sources tell us. Conveniently affording Obama and team a veil to cover the truth.

ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

This now famous utterance by President Obama prior to 9/11/14 was assailed immediately by a large swath of experts and the alternative media here in the blogosphere.

Of course, that statement is just another manifestation of his penchant for deceiving the country to achieve his political ends.khurasan

Tell them some big grandiose tales with fervor and the masses will believe.

Tell the world that al Qaeda is decimated and on the run, the masses will cheer. Of course he said that to get reelected in 2012. It worked, but now we are paying for it.

On just two points, we can sum up Obama’s presidency – Islam is peaceful and al Qaeda is decimated! Both are blatantly untrue and we and many others have demonstrated this for years.

Think about it, change the name, you change the perspective, therefore you win in the political sphere.

The left is famous for labeling and redefining words, so why not call al Qaeda a new name as they emerge as a very clear and present danger again.

But it is actually worse when it comes to saying ISIS (Da’esh) is not Islamic. If that is true, then what are the people who make up the other evil forces emanating from Islam? Let’s mention just a few:

Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani Network, Jumat al Fukra, al Aksa Martyr’s Brigade, Ansar al Sharia, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Jabhat al Nusra, PLO, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Uyghurs, Tamil Eelam, Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia, Jama’atul Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami, Abu Nidal Organization,Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Palestine Liberation Front, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PFLP, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Asbat al-Ansar, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Ansar al-Islam, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Islamic Jihad Group, Tehrik-e Taliban, Jundallah, Army of Islam, Indian Mujahidin, Jemaah Anshorut Tawhid, Abdallah Azzam Brigades, Ansar al-Dine, Ansaru, al-Mulathamun Battalion, Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi, Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah, Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia, AQAP, Dhamaat Houmet Daawa Salafia, Morroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Salafiya Jihadia, Jama’a Comattante Tunisenne, al Ittihad al Islami, East Turkistan Ilsamic Movement, Sipah i Sahaba, Lashar e Jhangvi, Al Ghurabaa, Al Ittihad al Islamia, Ansar al Sunna, Ansar Bayt al Maqdis, Baluchistan Liberation Army, Hezb E Islami Gulbuddin, Imarat Kavkaz (Caucasus Emirate), Chechen militants, and let us not forget, the Muslim Brotherhood…

Notice any similarities? Yes, we thought you would – all are Islamic. This list is not even close to all that could be mentioned, but you get the point, Obama made a very disingenuous statement.

The question is, how many of these are al Qaeda affiliates or off-shoots? How many were created since 2009, or after Osama bin Laden was killed? Again, you get the point, Obama is misleading you for political cover or gain. You live in either Dar al-Harb, or Dar al-Islam – the land of war, or the land of Islam.

Our own State Department and Counter-terrorism Centers list most of these, and they far out number any other terrorist organizations like the Irish Republican Army, Japan’s Aum Shinrikyo, and FARC in Columbia. Terrorism is indeed a trademark of Islam. There are many people tracking these groups and many more. See also here, and here at Jihad Watch.

behead_islamAnother point we want to emphasize is that al Qaeda comes in many names, some they assigned to themselves, others that were assigned by the west – why? Because there are political games played right in front of your eyes – like the Khorosan Group!

Yes, Obama and team gave al Qaeda a new name so you would not notice that his boasts and football spiking were all dishonest and self-serving.

Al Qaeda is bigger and stronger than ever – but these are just names that are all one thing – Islamic Jihadism, fundamental Islam carried out as proscribed by their prophet, fanatically. Muhammad would approve, especially the beheading parts!

Now ask, who is supporting all of them – think in large measure, Qatar, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia… the Muslim Brotherhood.

Let’s also consider another aspect, if it isn’t Islam, what is it? In your own words Mr. President, you tell us that Muslims die in far greater numbers at the hands of these evil doers. There is a reason for that, it is called apostasy. In Islam, by order, you are all in or you are an apostate. That brings us to another point; all these groups come from Islamic nations.

The Pew Research Center tells us there are 49 countries with Muslim majorities, with Nigeria about to become the 50th, but that was a number from 2011, so Nigeria may already qualify.

The Muslim world is over 24% of the Earth’s population, or almost 1.7 billion people and stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, so do all the groups listed above. The Muslim footprint grows daily and many countries’ indigenous peoples will soon become minorities in the west.

One large final question to ask, what are mosques in the West delivering in their sermons that fighters from the West are joining al Qaeda against the West.

ObamaUnApology2
Obama speaks before the UN General Assembly – and again apologizes for America, and Ferguson, really Mr. President?

The always insightful Andy McCarthy drives these points home:

We’re being had. Again.

For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees.

Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name.

Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability.

Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade.

Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group. The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize. (Read the rest here.)

We agree with Andy – we were sold a bill of goods again!

D'Souza Sentenced – 'Community Confinement,' DOJ Misled Judge

By Scott W. Winchell, SUA Editor

Noted Obama critic and conservative icon Dinesh D’Souza was spared actual prison time for pleading guilty to election law violations. He was fined a healthy sum, sentenced to probation for a lengthy period, and must serve an eight month stint in a ‘community confinement center’ as part of his probation.

We at SUA assert, and it is quite obvious, Mr. D’Souza was selectively prosecuted by an over zealous US Attorney and the Department of Justice, but indeed he was guilty of a dumb move, a campaign finance law felony. He freely admits that, unlike many he debates often like Bill Ayers, the infamous domestic terrorist.dsouza-ayers-debate1-620x346

However, when we look at the totality of crimes, this one ranks as one of the least impactful to the community, and it is certainly non-violent. It was a case that really did not warrant such expense and effort under normal prosecutorial discretion. It appeared then and now that it was payback.

Yes, it is a crime that goes to the core of our Republic’s existence and survival, but does the punishment meet the true deleterious effect it had on the community in this case?

Since the recipient candidate of the donations lost so badly, and the amounts were in a microscope’s spectrum (especially compared to what took place when Bill Clinton was campaigning), why was a contrite man made to be such an example? Did the dated crime warrant such fervor and obvious extraordinary effort to find something on D’Souza?

Of course not, but then again, don’t cross the ‘enforcer’ and Obama ‘protector’, Eric Holder and his DoJ!

What impact did the prosecution have in its extremely zealous pursuit of the now convicted D’Souza? Well, it seems there was some real proof of how zealous they were, exposing just why they sought to pillory him. They were afraid of leniency so they are allegedly guilty of crimes in the prosecution:

According to court documents, federal prosecutors working on behalf of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice misled U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman in the case against conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza during their pursuit of 10-to-16 months of prison time for a federal felony charge.

In a reply sentencing memo submitted to the Court on behalf of D’Souza last week, his counsel argues federal prosecutors excluded and misrepresented the facts of “similar” cases in the Government’s sentencing proposal to Judge Berman, leaving out crucial facts key to fair and equal sentencing for D’Souza compared to other cases. (Read more at Townhall)

We also question the sentence. Why? Because he received what amounts to incarceration, just not in a penitentiary. Even convicted drunk drivers get less in most states and their crimes are of a potential violent nature.

It sure helps prove that if someone in law enforcement has it in for you, they will find something to nail you on with such a huge amount of laws on the books, many of which are not ‘faithfully executed’ by the very same people. In our ‘weaponized’ Obama administration, that has become all too clear.

What is a Community Confinement Center anyway? Is he going to need counseling and ‘do not do that’ classes? Will he need an intervention? What if his probation officer voted for Obama, twice? What if he continues to be an activist FOR America, unlike those who are clearly against it? It appears he will have to teach English to non-English speaking citizens?

Community confinement is a condition of probation or supervised release. It involves residence in a halfway house, restitution center, community treatment center, mental health facility, alcohol or drug rehabilitation center, or other community facility.

It looks like Dinesh was just not contrite enough, as Judge Berman felt, but why did the judge NOT admonish the prosecution and reduce the sentence further as a means to punish over zealous, ideologically driven federal prosecution?

It certainly did not comport with who D’Souza is, and that rehabilitative endeavors are a waste of tax dollars and Mr. D’Souza’s own ability to support himself and continue to be a community activist educator – isn’t that superior to being a community organizer?

Justice was certainly not blind in this case!

Dinesh D’Souza Sentenced to Probation, Community Service

By  at Breitbart

Following nearly three hours of compelling, wrangling, and heartfelt deliberations, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was sentenced on Tuesday to five years of probation. He will serve the first eight months in a community confinement center, as deemed by Judge Richard Berman in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

031014_dinesh_948

D’Souza, 53, said he was thankful that Judge Berman passed a “fair judgment.” Speaking on his behalf, D’Souza’s attorney Benjamin Brafman said, “I’ve yet to find a case exactly like this that ends in a prison sentence, and I’m glad that this was not the first one. We are delighted that Judge Berman spared Mr. D’Souza.”

Brafman cited several similar cases during D’Souza’s sentencing in the federal courtroom, none of which ended in jail time. Brafman posited that a punishment of incarceration did not fit the crime for which D’Souza was being judged. In the end, Judge Berman agreed.

Judge Berman also took into consideration the fact that this was the 53-year-old D’Souza’s first offense.

D’Souza was indicted by a federal grand jury in the beginning of this year for making straw donations – contributions in the names of other people – to a Republican Senatorial candidate running in the State of New York, Wendy E. Long – a move that is violation of federal campaign finance laws. D’Souza had, through two friends, donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign, an amount which exceeds the $5,000 legal limit.

The esteemed author, filmmaker, and commentator was described as a “person who cares” and who is “good at heart.” During the sentencing, D’Souza told Judge Berman, “I know what I did was wrong, and I am contrite about it.”

justice-is-blind-statueIn addition to his five-year probation sentencing and eight months of confinement in a community confinement center — or restitution center, which will likely be completed in San Diego, California where D’Souza resides — Judge Berman ordered D’Souza to undergo “therapeutic counseling.” Berman also noted that during those five years, D’Souza must carry out community service by teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) for eight hours a day, one day a week.

Attorney Michael Gaynor, who was present at D’Souza’s hearing as a spectator, told Breitbart News that “Dinesh D’Souza does not belong in jail.” He also pointed out that he had never heard a judge sentence a defendant to therapeutic counseling.

Judge Berman also ruled that D’Souza must pay a $30,000 fine within 45 days. Berman, 71, was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton.

Assistant U.S. Attorney and Prosecutor Carrie Cohen, who had from the start of the case outlined the U.S. Government’s charge against D’Souza, argued during the sentencing that D’Souza’s “actions were premeditated” and stated that “a prison sentence is sufficient.”

Brafman rebutted that D’Souza’s act was carried out “without premeditation” and noted that, if he had planned out said action, the $25K his client had withdrawn in one lump sum from his bank would have, in fact, been drawn out in increments of “under $10k at a time” in order to avoid a currency transaction report (CTR). Thus, Brafman argued that D’Souza did not act in a manner that was premeditated.

D’Souza admitted that, in the interest of time, he had not consulted attorneys in his decision to donate to Long’s campaign in the way he did nor did he create a political action committee (PAC).

D’Souza, who is known for such documentary films as 2016: Obama’s America (released in 2012) and America: Imagine a World Without Her, which hit theaters this year, is due back in court on October 15 for the finalization of details of his sentencing.

Jihad Terror Is Here In America – Tevlin Murder in NJ

Editor’s Note – Is homegrown Jihadi Terror active here at home? Of course it is and now we can see that not only did we have the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Fort Hood Massacre – we now see that a young man, Brendan Tevlin was killed in South Orange, NJ. There are many more instances, but this one has been largely ignored in the media.  (More extensive coverage can be found here at Heavy.com.)

Why? Because he was an “American” and America had to pay for its military actions in the Middle East.

Tevlin Was Ambushed and Shot 8 Times
Tevlin Was Ambushed and Shot 8 Times

A local radio talk personality ran with the story that is now becoming a major subject for discussion, especially since Obama said in his prime time speech last Wednesday that:

We will continue to use the criminal justice system as a critical tool in our counterterrorism toolbox.

…we will counter violent extremism here at home, including tailored domestic programs to prevent violent extremism and radicalization in order to intervene with at-risk individuals before they become radicalized toward violence…

The President may never admit it, but the problem is Islam. The Islamic State is Islamic, Fort Hood was Islamic terror, the Tsarnaev brothers were Islamic terrorists – denying the obvious does not make the problem disappear or absolve all Muslims to reign in the fundamentalists who use the Qu’ran verbatim.

Now we hear that it depends on how people interpret what is written in the Qu’ran from many talking heads. Reading words verbatim indicates they have certain meaning and are unrestrained as is pointed out below. They do not need interpretation, and history cannot be rewritten to cover for the violence that is based on conquering Islamic hordes for over 1,400 years.

It is a fact that in Islam, only an Imam or above is allowed to interpret the Qu’ran. Why, So they can conceal its true meaning and its true nature and wield its power as a toll when they so desire, especially the fundamentalist Muslims. Apologists and so-called moderates inculcate western values into eastern thinking and decide who is and who is not a Muslim. Obama famously now said:

ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…

We must again encourage all to read the words and the history – these barbaric acts have been waged under the name of Islam for centuries. Islam does condone killing – note the summary from religionofpeace.com:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The Qu’ran most also be seen through the eys of the law of superposition – that which comes later countermands earlier writings. Do you know the difference between the ‘Medinan Version’ and the ‘Meccan Version’ as well? Please go to the site and read for yourselves.

Here is a video explaining the top ten Qu’ranic verses to help you understand ISIS/ISIL:

%CODE2%

Other sites we recommend:

Brendan Tevlin’s murder evidence that ‘domestic terrorism is already here,’ says radio host (AUDIO)

By Dan Ivers – www.NJ.com

NEW YORK CITY — A New York radio personality is calling for increased attention to the June murder of a 19-year-old Livingston man, calling it evidence that “domestic terrorism is already here.”

Todd Pettengill, host of WPLJ’s “The Todd Show”, discussed the death of Brendan Tevlin for more than eight minutes this morning, asking why the case has not received more attention despite the alleged murderer’s admissions that he killed Tevlin as an act of vengeance for U.S. military actions in the Middle East.

“It was in fact an act of jihad, perpetrated by a fellow American who sympathized more with those who want to annihilate us than with his own country and its people,” he said.

Essex County authorities have charged 29-year-old Ali Muhammad Brown with killing Tevlin in a West Orange intersection on June 25.

Left to right: Ali Muhammad Brown, 29; Jeremy Villagran, 19; and Eric Williams, 18, are charged in 19-year-old Brenden Tevlin's June 25 slaying in West Orange, N.J. Brown is a double-murder suspect from Seattle. - NY Daily News
Left to right: Ali Muhammad Brown, 29; Jeremy Villagran, 19; and Eric Williams, 18, are charged in 19-year-old Brenden Tevlin’s June 25 slaying in West Orange, N.J. Brown is a double-murder suspect from Seattle. – NY Daily News

Since being taken into custody on July 18, he has confessed to the murder, along with three others in Washington state, saying they were carried out as retribution for innocent lives lost in Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Islamic world.

Pettengil criticized President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for not referencing the case in recent addresses and downplaying the level of threat radical Islamists currently living in America could pose.

He also chided the media for not bringing the story to the national stage, and focusing instead on other protests such as those in Ferguson, Mo., where an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, was shot to death by a police officer last month.

Brendan Tevlin, 19 Via Twitter
Brendan Tevlin, 19 Via Twitter

“If there was ever a reason to riot in the streets in the name of humanity it would for this case. But has that happened? No. And I’m not suggesting that it should,” he said.

“What I’m suggesting should happen is that this should be talked about and written about, and the American people should know.”

Pettengil also echoed the frustrations of Tevlin’s parents over the initial characterization by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office that the teenager was “targeted” before being gunned down in a West Orange intersection on June 25.

Authorities later walked back the description, saying accused murderer Ali Muhammad Brown and two other men, Jeremy Villagran and Eric Williams, had randomly targeted Tevlin for a robbery before Brown shot him eight times.

A fourth man may have also fled the scene of the murder, according to prosecutors, but he has not been identified or named as a suspect.

Pettengill closed his statement by reminding listeners that they should acknowledge the threats the country faces from terrorists both overseas and at home.

“The bottom line is this, domestic terrorism is already here, and we need to talk about it,” he said.

Listen to the radio program below:

%CODE%

McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

DOJ Produces Legal Rationale of CIA Killing al-Awlaki

Editor’s Note – The killing of Anwar al Awlaki  and another US citizen, Samir Kahn by the CIA has raised questions of the legality of our government assassinating one of its citizens because he was a known terrorist operative/leader in 2011. Two questions arose.

The first was the legality of making that order, the second was whether or not it was legal for the CIA to carry out the deed. A third issue arises as well – if it was legal in the United States, was it legal in the land it was carried out in; Yemen?Drone-kills-Awlaki

Naturally, constitutional and international legal and diplomatic questions arose and many asked the Obama Administration for its legal explanation for coming to the conclusions they did and then relied upon when carrying out the assassination.

Congress demanded the rationale from Obama’s Department of Justice and just recently, the second of two documents were released finally. The first was released last year on the legality of the killing itself, and now the second provides the rationale for the CIA carrying out the order. Vice News provides us with the details below and the document can be read from a copy of the original.

You be the judge:

A Justice Department Memo Provides the CIA’s Legal Justification to Kill a US Citizen

By Jason Leopold – Vice News

“This white paper sets forth the legal basis upon which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could use lethal force in Yemen against a United States citizen who senior officials reasonably determined was a senior leader of al-Qaida or an associated force of al-Qaida.”

So begins a 22-page, heavily redacted, previously top-secret document titled “Legality of a Lethal Operation by the Central Intelligence Agency Against a US Citizen,” which provides the first detailed look at the legal rationale behind lethal operations conducted by the agency. The white paper [pdf below] was turned over to VICE News in response to a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department.

It’s one of two white papers the Justice Department prepared in 2011 after lawmakers demanded to know what the administration’s legal rationale was for targeting for death the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. The first white paper, released last year, addressed why the targeted killing by the US military of an American abroad was lawful. This second white paper addresses why it was lawful for the CIA to do so. Neither white paper identifies Awlaki by name.

Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.
Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.

The May 25, 2011 document is based on a 41-page Justice Department memo that lays out the government’s legal basis for targeting Awlaki without affording him his right to due process under the US Constitution. For years, the Obama administration was pressured by lawmakers to share the memo, but officials refused — and wouldn’t even confirm that such a memo existed.

One of the most controversial legal arguments advanced in the white paper is the justification for civilians at the CIA engaging in hostilities abroad. The 1942 Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quirin, which is footnoted in the white paper, says that “by universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction… between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.

“[A]n enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property” is an example of a belligerent who is an “offender against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by a military tribunal.”

‘They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill.’

Because CIA personnel are not part of the armed forces when they engage in hostilities, they are deemed to be unlawful combatants. The white paper acknowledges this, but argues that the CIA officers who are unlawful combatants are not war criminals as long as they comply with the laws of war.

The government is “very concerned with the status of the CIA,” said international law expert Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of criminal law at the School of Oriental and Criminal Studies at the University of London. “There’s absolutely no question that if any of these CIA agents involved in Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing ever went on vacation in Yemen or ever went on vacation in a state that has universal jurisdiction over war crimes, they could be arrested and prosecuted for murder. They certainly have committed murder under the laws of other states. Whether they have committed murder under American domestic law is another question.”

The white paper outlines five possible legal authorities that might prohibit the CIA from using lethal force against a US citizen abroad: three statutes (the foreign murder statute, conspiracy to murder an individual outside the US, and the War Crimes Act) and two constitutional provisions (the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process).

It relies on the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the relatively unknown legal doctrine known as the “public authority justification” to explain why the CIA’s actions are not unlawful, concluding that there is no law prohibiting the CIA from killing a US citizen in Yemen based on the facts of his particular case — redacted from the white paper — described by the CIA to the Justice Department.

Individuals typically use the public authority justification in criminal cases, arguing that the government authorized their actions. For example, a person wearing a wire for the FBI might be violating a state’s eavesdropping law. However, if the defendant successfully uses the public authority justification, he would not be found guilty even though he clearly violated the law. The white paper concedes that the public authority justification has rarely, if ever, been used to justify the government’s own acts.

%CODE%

Heller says he agrees with the legal analysis of the public authority justification, but only as it pertains to the military’s lethal actions abroad — not the CIA’s.

According to the white paper: “Given the assessment that an analogous operation carried out pursuant to the AUMF would fall within the scope of the public-authority justification, there is no reason to reach a different conclusion for a CIA operation.”

homepage_targeted_assassinations_1Heller told VICE News this is the “sum total” the white paper says about the CIA’s public authority justification, and that the government falls short of making its case. Still, he says, the white paper is significant “as it indicates [the Justice Department] knew they had to talk about the CIA specifically, and knew they couldn’t just lump in the military and the CIA together.

“They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill,” Heller continued. “Unfortunately, the memo doesn’t really tell us anything because of the way it’s been redacted. If the question is, Where does the CIA get their authority to use lethal force abroad?, given that’s the necessary condition for them to avoid this foreign murder statute, this memo doesn’t tell us anything. It could be there. But if it is, it’s behind a redaction.”

Although the white paper says that the CIA expressed to the Justice Department that it preferred to capture “this target,” the agency assessed that a capture operation in Yemen “would not be feasible at this time.”

“The CIA has further represented that this sort of operation would not be undertaken in a perfidious or treacherous manner,” the white paper says.

A footnote states that the white paper “addresses exclusively the use of force abroad, in the circumstances described herein. It does not address legal issues that the use of force in different circumstances or in any nation other than Yemen might present.”

Still, the logic and legal rationale could be applied to the same types of lethal operations against Americans in other countries who the government may determine are part of al Qaeda or an “associated force” of the terrorist organization.