The Deep State’s Total Control with Beijing as the Mother of Managers

 

A Status Review

The good news is that our Mother of Managers, RED China, continues to franchise its “One World, One Dream” surveillance and control solution based on its own Golden Shield initiative which produces “Happy Populations and Consumers” that our actuarily our LRUs for predictable profit margin percentages.

Even though Hillary missed her moment again, Diane and her driver, Nancy, the FBI, DOJ, State, NSA, and “Central” have been very helpful.

On the downside, NAFTA and the TPP were exposed, however, the drug trade, human trafficking, and organ harvesting ventures are thriving. Others should implement the “Planned Parenthood” disguise.

Also, the Village Idiots have still not figured out the pretext and goal of Arab Spring, and we really cut it close with The Thing from 1890’s, SSN # 042-68-4425, fake war on Libya and used the crisis to expand our pretext of the Global War on Terror into Europe to ultimately benefit RED China’s loan sharking and total control blueprint.

Syria was never on the Arab Spring list, but we also turned it into an opportunity for “Sustainable Development Wherever the UN Goes or Doesn’t Go When It Ideally Should” with less people as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia etc.

Trump like Reagan has interrupted the implementation of the blueprint, but we have some plans and eventually one will work to get the implementation back on track as we are so very close. The good news is Americans are getting dumber by the minute as well as being crushed with debt while thinking their “schooling” is giving them the skill sets for financial success while we have put all the roadblocks in place to prevent that from happening thanks to all our puppets in the U.S. Congress. Eventually they will succumb to the bait of free stuff and be totally dependent on us.

Eventually, with the success of RED China’s “One World, One Dream” solution, we will be able to overcome any resistance to our plan via its built in hostage taking and extortion. RED China’s partnership with NSA and “Central” has made good use of this in America. We must continue on this path and someday very soon all will wake up from The Dream and realize it is not their Dream but our Dream and they will not be able to do anything about it when it becomes their nightmare for our benefit.

Once again, election seasons are coming up again, and we must focus on placing more Emirs into our future areas of control so that we can remove all aspects of resistance. We must make Eichmann proud!

 

 

Editors Note: Farming, Mining, and Management of The Human Kind : The pretext of altruistic endeavors that just suddenly become predatory and parasitic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Blueprint for RED China’s One World One Dream:

How Arab governments use cyberspace laws to shut down activism

Critical Arab voices are being silenced on Twitter, and laws across the Middle East are created to further this cause.

by Yarno Ritzen
25 Jul 2019

In this series of articles, Al Jazeera examines how Twitter in the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring. 

Government talking points are being magnified through thousands of accounts during politically fraught times and silencing people on Twitter is only part of a large-scale effort by governments to stop human rights activists and opponents of the state from being heard. 

For human rights activists, journalists, dissidents and free speech campaigners, social media has long been a double-edged sword, representing both the positive and harmful aspects of open communication on the internet.

On the one hand, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow activists the opportunity to spread their message, reaching an audience they could only dream of before the internet.

But on the other, the nature of open communication raises the risk of being followed, exposed or worse, as some governments increase their digital surveillance capabilities.

As a result, governments around the world are turning social media against their citizens.

China is the country where government control of the internet is by far the most egregious, but many countries in the Middle East are not far behind when it comes to using the internet against those who fight for a more open society, the annual Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House concluded.

Mohamad Najem, executive director at Beirut-based SMEX, a digital rights organisation focusing on issues related to freedom of expression, online privacy and safety, said social media movements had taken the Middle East by surprise and governments adapted relatively quickly, using social media against protesters and civil rights activists.

Over the last decade, SMEX has tracked how the use of social media platforms like Twitter, both by activists and governments, has changed.

“In 2011, access to these tools was still kind of new and governments underestimated them,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

Meet the activists fighting the Great Chinese Firewall

Social media allowed people in the Middle East to voice their concerns and question those in power.

During the Arab Spring, protesters were able to organise on social media, a tool that connected their realities with the rest of the world.

But governments were watching, too, and continue to closely monitor.

“Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“The online sphere we used to go to in the Middle East to express ourselves, to talk about politics, has started to close down slowly because of all these regulations,” he added.

“People were prosecuted, thrown in jail, or they had to flee the country.”

To show what laws Middle East governments have introduced in recent years, SMEX launched Cyrilla, a website listing all proposed and passed legislation aimed at curbing free speech.

The database, which offers texts in Arabic and English and covers the entire region, shows clearly how digital liberties in the Middle East have come under attack.

Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech.

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

It also lists several countries outside of the Middle East, including RussiaVietnam and Fiji.

“Across the Middle East, there is a large number of countries that have specifically instituted anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that contain vague prohibitions on free speech,” Jillian York told Al Jazeera.

York is the Berlin-based director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which aims to protect civil liberties in the digital world.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Qatar; all these countries have instituted cybercrime laws and in most cases, the laws are vague – quite broad,” she said.

As an example, York cited Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation from 2014, which criminalises defamation of the state and defines calling for atheist thought as a “terrorist” action.

Recently, prominent Norway-based pro-democracy activist Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Palestinian who has been outspoken in his criticism of Saudi authority figures, made a plea for his safety after US intelligence agency CIA found a credible threat to his life from authorities in the kingdom.

El-Baghdadi is behind The Arab Tyrant Manual, which focuses on global authoritarianism and the struggle for democratic liberties in the Arab region. He is also a fellow at Civita, a leading liberal think-tank in Norway, where he sought asylum after he was forced to leave his home in the United Arab Emirates in 2015.

İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي

@iyad_elbaghdadi

Spare a thought for all the dissidents, activists, journalists, and private citizens in the Arab world who get beaten, arrested, tortured, murdered without being passed tips and without being offered protection. They are the real heroes, and they are the real victims. Not me.

54 people are talking about this

But it is not just Saudi Arabia, as documented by organisations including Amnesty International and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights show.

Governments in the Middle East have started using platforms such as Twitter as amplifiers, using both automated bot accounts and well-known social media influencers to promote state-approved messaging, Najem said.

So, while activist voices are being drowned out by government-approved messages, sometimes amplified by fake Twitter accounts, campaigners also risk being jailed or are forced to leave the country because of newly implemented cybercrime or “antiterrorism” laws.

Last April, Saudi Arabia arrested three bloggers without giving any reasons for their arrest.

Similarly, the Turkish government cracked down hard last year on Twitter users who used the platform to voice their criticism of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria, claiming they were spreading “terrorist propaganda”.

The UAE, meanwhile, made it a criminal offence to show support for Qatar in the ongoing GCC crisis, claiming people who did so violated the federal decree on Combating Information Technology Crimes, possibly facing a jail term from three to 15 years, and a fine not less than 500,000 dirhams ($136,000).

According to both Najem and York, it is not just governments that are to blame for the crackdown on activists.

Part of the responsibility falls on social media companies for failing to address the issue of automated propaganda accounts and willingly helping governments in the region.

“One of the challenges with companies like Twitter – and most tech companies – is that they are based in Dubai. This is an issue because this is a country that has no respect for human rights, which means they have no respect for digital rights either,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“We have a problem that all these companies that are being used for free speech, such as Twitter, are based in the Gulf. These are countries that are not signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [giving everyone a right to freedom of opinion and expression] is not part of their mandate and freedom of expression is not something they care about.”

To add, York explained, the opaque deals these companies make with governments lead to more censorship, which is often hard to notice.

I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.

JILLIAN YORK, EFF

“Governments sort of wisened up and, due to a number of other factors, they began instead utilising these companies to do this censorship for them,” she said.

“This is a more palatable form of censorship for the people because they don’t notice what is missing. Instead of getting an error page when you visit a website like Twitter or Facebook, the content is just missing – it has disappeared,” she added.

“That has allowed these companies to continue to engage and grow in these markets while not being blamed for the censorship.”

York believes that these companies should be incredibly limited in how they regulate speech.

Another problem, she says, is that these companies consider the Middle East as a single monolithic entity and fail to look at the nuances between different countries.

“It’s very culturally ignorant to think that Lebanese people would want the same rules as the Saudis,” she said.

“To give a concrete example of this, search engine Microsoft Bing for years censored its results in the entire Middle East based on what Saudi Arabia asked them to censor.”

As a result, York explained, Bing instituted a blanket ban for certain keywords in the whole Middle East, so, for example, because Saudi Arabia wanted all mentions of the word “breast” removed from search results, people in Lebanon were not able to use Bing to search for “chicken breast”.

Meanwhile, accessing pornographic websites directly was still possible in Lebanon.

“So, I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.”

“These days they just do it, they don’t push back on it any more.”

Wael Abbas, an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, used to document police brutality in Egypt.

“It’s quite clear from Abbas’s case that he was being attacked by trolls on Twitter that he alleges were government paid, but we don’t know that for sure,” York said.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy.”

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

“Nevertheless, he was attacked by government supporters on Twitter, he fought back and then his account was shut down by Twitter, probably because he used language that was in their rules considered hate speech.”

His account remains suspended.

“In Wael’s example, they should not have kicked him off of the platform for using harsh language,” York said.

These sustained efforts have instilled fear among activists, many of whom have largely moved away from public platforms like Twitter and Facebook to more closed systems.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy,” Najem said.

While the increased privacy of closed platforms provides some more safety for activists, reaching an audience as they did during the Arab Spring seems impossible.

Saudi women’s rights activist Souad al-Shammary looks at her Twitter account on her mobile phone. She is a liberal feminist who was jailed for her views [File: AP]

Article

GO RED China! GO RED China!

 

 

Hillary Clinton's "Watergate Moment," and the "Smoking Gun"?

Editor’s Note – Are we at a “Watergate Moment” now that we have learned of the “Smoking Gun” email that should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back concerning Hillary Clinton?

Will FBI Director Jim Comey send a set of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice as we believe he should?

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.13HoursBenghaziBook

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime.

It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax.

They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” (Read more here at Drudge.)

What will Lynch do if Comey does recommend prosecutions? We are certain Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from pursuing office for many other reasons not the least of which were he actions concerning Benghazi but this many individual felonious acts warrant a much swifter prosecution of the law than we have experienced because of her “special status”.

ClintonSullivanFBI

With the movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” coming to theaters next week, we believe America will demand that she be prosecuted.

We have not even mentioned all the questionable activity over the Clinton Foundation and numerous other issues but we are certain of one thing, America cannot afford another epic mistake in the election of our President after these past 7 years.

Hillary Clinton’s criminal probe will ‘come to a head’ in next 60 days; indictment likely, says ex-US attorney

By Frieda Powers – BPR BizPac Review

The ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails has not yet landed the Democratic candidate an interview with the FBI, but a former U.S. attorney thinks a criminal indictment could be coming in the next 60 days.

Former Republican U.S. attorney, Joe DiGenova, said a charge against Clinton personally would put the current administration in a very uncomfortable position, reported the Washington Examiner. The open FBI investigation is Clinton’s “biggest problem right now,” DiGenova said on the “Laura Ingraham Show” radio program, Tuesday.

%CODE%

DiGenova, a Republican who served as a federal prosecutor under former President Ronald Reagan, told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that the FBI’s
investigation has reached a “critical mass” and the evidence against the former secretary of state is damning. (The Blaze)

“They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,” he said. “And, it’s going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.”

Before making any findings public, the FBI would still likely need to interview the former secretary of state, DiGenova said. After months of investigating whether Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information on an unsecured network, FBI Director James Comey has not disclosed when the probe will conclude.

“It’s going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they’re not going to be able to walk away from it,” said DiGenova. “They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that’s just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives.”

While the Clinton campaign has insisted it is not a criminal investigation of the candidate personally, DiGenova maintained that the evidence otherwise is “compelling” and “overwhelming.” The Obama administration would find itself in a corner as the burden would lie with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to charge Clinton personally with a crime.

“The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary,” said DiGenova,  “is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.”

“I believe,” DiGenova added, “that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

 

Contempt of Court, Contempt for 'We the People'

By SUA Staff – In the Obama Administration, ethics and the rule-of-law only matters when it serves their political purposes. What matters most to each and every one of his leadership team is implementing liberal ideas without playing by the rules because they would never pass in the way our system was designed.

Ignore the courts, end-runs around Congress, or when Harry Reid was in charge, lock it down are so common now, it is hard to believe there is not more ire then is currently visible in our society.

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Obama and team are succeeding in proving him correct.

Contempt for "We the People"
Contempt for “We the People”

The ‘transformation’ of our once great nation is on ‘warp drive’ and each day another example of the lawlessness of the Obama Administration is exposed.

The latest example involves the Department of Homeland Security, at the highest levels, disobeying a court order and misleadin a judge about it.

When the DOJ refused to follow-up on Lois Lerner’s Contempt of Congress charge, no one was really surprised.

Now that is juxtaposed in this setting with an interesting twist, U.S. District Judge Hanen is now threatening high level officials with contempt-of-court. He is not happy; we are not happy.

When EPA Chief McCarthy blithely waves off a SCOTUS decision, who is there to stop her? Blatant contempt of our highest court, but what does it matter when that court has contempt of our constitution?

Would it not be grand to finally see someone like Jeh Johnson in hand-cuffs as he is whisked off for booking? Not to mention a few DOJ lawyers who already misled and lied to the judge prior?

Finally we would get to see at least one ‘perp-walk’ of the many who desperately deserve the same. This administration has stretched just about everything to its limit; by hook or crook; soon we will be destroyed from within – so cavalierly. Contempt for ‘we the people’ is clear!

Judge orders Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security chief, others to court

– Associated Press/Washington Times

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Texas has threatened to hold Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and other top immigration enforcement officials in contempt of court for not fixing problems that led to work permits being mistakenly awarded under President Barack Obama’s executive immigration action after the judge had put the plan on hold.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville

The Justice Department had said about 2,000 individuals had been sent three-year work authorizations after U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, temporarily blocked the immigration action on Feb. 16.

In a court order Tuesday, Hanen said government officials have yet to fix the problem. The judge also requested Johnson and four other officials attend an Aug. 19 hearing to explain why the issue hasn’t been fixed and to “be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of court.”

“This court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation,” Hanen wrote.

The other officials are: R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol; Sarah Saldaña, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron said in an email her agency and the Justice Department are reviewing Hanen’s order. Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush declined to comment.

In court documents filed in May, Rodríguez had said his agency had implemented “immediate corrective measures,” including revoking the permits and modifying computer systems to prevent issuing such permits in the future.

Hanen said in his order that if the federal government fixes the problem by July 31, he will cancel the Aug. 19 hearing.

Obama proposed in November expanding a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and adding another that extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years.

He said lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own, but Republicans said Obama overstepped his authority.obama_Hanen

The judge had issued the injunction at the request of a coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, which have filed a lawsuit to stop Obama’s action, saying it is unconstitutional.

An appeal of Hanen’s ruling is set to be argued Friday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Hanen has previously criticized the federal government’s actions in the lawsuit, saying the government had been “misleading” after officials revealed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation as well as work permits when the judge had believed that no action would be taken before he issued a ruling on the injunction.

Justice Department attorneys apologized for any confusion regarding the 108,000 reprieves but insisted they were granted under a 2012 program that wasn’t affected by the injunction.

Along with Texas, the states seeking to block Obama’s action are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

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.

Obama Admin – Transparency, Redaction, and Delay…

Editor’s Note – The “Most transparent administration ever” is the mantra of the Obama Administration, and they laud the fact that the White House Visitor List is available – elsewhere, not so…

Ask the Citizens Commission on Benghazi with their myriad requests for information on Benghazi. Ask Karen and Billy Vaughn about ‘Extortion 17’. Ask the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ask the House Ways and Means Committee.Capture2

Look at all the scandals – all of them still unsolved and/or not concluded from Fast & Furious, to the IRS, from the AP to Fox News reporters, it’s always opaque at best.

The reason is always – NO TRANSPARENCY! All we see is redaction, lies, deflections, demagoguery, distractions, delays, finger pointing, the blame game, the fifth… and then there all those unbelievable statistics on jobs, GNP, the debt, ObamaCare, HHS, wage disparity, etc. – lies, damn lies, and those rascally  statistics.

The most [REDACTED] administration in history

BY GENE HEALY – Washington Examiner

Good news: thanks to a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, the “most transparent administration in history” is going to have to tell American citizens when it believes it’s legally entitled to kill them.

The lawsuit arose out of Freedom of Information Act requests by two New York Times reporters for Office of Legal Counsel memoranda exploring the circumstances under which it would be legal for U.S. personnel to target American citizens. The administration stonewalled, asserting that “the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified,” and a federal district judge upheld the refusal in January 2013.

Issa-600A month later, however, someone leaked a Justice Department “white paper” on the subject to NBC News, forcing a re-examination of the question in light of changed circumstances. On Monday, the three-judge panel held “it is no longer either ‘logical’ or ‘plausible’ to maintain that disclosure of the legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum risks disclosing any aspect” of sensitive sources and methods.

In matters of transparency, the Obama Team can always be counted on to do the right thing — after exhausting all other legal options and being forced into it by the federal courts.

When “peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room” after then-press secretary Robert Gibbs floated the “most transparent administration” line at an April 2010 presser, the administration should have taken the hint. But it’s one soundbite they just can’t quit. Gibbs’ successor Jay Carneyrepeated it just last week, as did the president himself in a Google Hangout last year: “This is the most transparent administration in history …. I can document that this is the case.”

Actually, any number of journalists and open government advocates have documented that it’s not. As the Associated Press reported last month: “More often than ever, the [Obama] administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In the hope-infused afterglow of his first inauguration, President Obama declared, “for a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” and ordered his attorney general to issue newly restrictive standards for government use of the “state secrets privilege,” which allows the government to shield national security secrets from civil or criminal discovery. Attorney General Eric Holder pledged that the administration would not “invoke the privilege for the purpose of concealing government wrongdoing or avoiding embarrassment.”GretaVanSustern-RedactedDocs224x199

Easier pledged than done, apparently. Earlier this year, in a case involving a Stanford graduate student erroneously placed on a no-fly list, we learned that the government had cried “state secrets” to cover up a paperwork error. Holder himself assured the court that assertion of the privilege was in keeping with the new policy of openness. When the presiding judge found out the truth, he said: “I feel that I have been had by the government.”

In fact, the Obama administration has driven state secrecy to new levels of absurdity. We’re not even allowed to know who we’re at war with, apparently, because letting that secret slip could cause “serious damage to national security.”

Over the last year, thanks in large part to illegal leaks, we’ve learned that we’re living in a [REDACTED] republic. In the president’s version of “transparency,” the Americans have no right to debate even the most basic public questions — like the legal standards for spying on or killing American citizens — unless, of course, that information leaks, at which point the administration “welcomes” the debate.