Search the Community

Washington Times: Biden issued secret orders to US intelligence to kill people in different countries Today 16:54 Information / translation. A report by the American newspaper The Washington Times revealed, Thursday, that President Joe Biden, in order to assert his autonomy, issued secret orders to the intelligence agency and their counterparts from military leaders to kill people in countries outside the United States if they had "almost certainty" that individuals were involved in terrorism. The report, which was translated by "al-Maalouma" agency, stated that "the phrase semi-certainty does not have a standard in the law because it is contradictory and defies logic. It is like the phrase "semi-pregnant." One does not know if there is a pregnancy or not, and there is no confirmation of that, so the word "semi-pregnant" is meaningless." "Establishing such an unfortunate standard underscores the complete absence of the rule of law in the Biden administration, and in the administrations of his three immediate predecessors, both of whom deployed drones to kill and act to kill people who were not involved in violence at the time, regardless of near-certainty," he added. regarding their membership in any organisation. He explained that "the criterion of terrorism in the act of killing carries various meanings, the truth of which is not clear, and there is no agreement on a formula that defines who is the terrorist. As for the British King George III, George Washington was a terrorist and for the poor in Libya and Syria, to the popularly elected governments that were overthrown as a result of violence inspired by The CIA, the innocents who have been tortured in black sites around the world, the CIA is a terrorist organization." He explained that "the laws of war - a term in and of themselves contradictory - which are codified in general in the Geneva Conventions and the Charter of the United Nations, all of which were spearheaded and ratified by the United States, basically state that legitimate wars can only be defensive and proportionate." With the threat or damage he has already caused. In other words, treaties signed by the United States prohibit the president from killing people in other countries with which the United States is not lawfully at war." He noted, "Nevertheless, the presidential use of drones to kill people abroad began in 2002 with targeted killings ordered by George W. Bush. It continued under Barack Obama - who even killed Americans abroad where every president set the rules for killing." Under his own view, the last four White House occupants have disregarded the Constitution when it came to covert killings." finished /25 z

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens President Barack Obama salutes military service members while watching the inaugural parade from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) more > By Bill Gertz - The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers. The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest. PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets “This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive. Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.” “Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states. “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions. The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.” “Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states. Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest. A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundyand his armed supporters. Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down. The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft. “Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says. The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf. Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department. The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment. President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.” A Pentagon official who defended the directive said it was signed in December 2010 after four years of thorough consultations within the Pentagon and with other federal agencies The 2010 directive replaced several previously published directives in 1980, 1991, and 1993. The last time military forces were used to quell civil unrest was 1906 following the San Francisco earthquake to protect the federal mint and restore order in the city. The official said: “I suppose that in a very extreme case, one can imagine a combination of natural and man-made disasters that result in the cascading failure of communication infrastructure, or some electro-magnetic pulse that shuts down all electronic communication.” “In the event that it should happen in today’s day and age, we would want our senior military leaders in the field to do all they can to assist their fellow Americans to prevent significant loss of life or malicious destruction of property and to protect federal property or federal governmental functions,” the official said. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/#ixzz3biqQgfCr Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Iraq lawmakers approve interior, defense ministers By - Associated Press - Saturday, October 18, 2014 BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraqi lawmakers have approved all of the remaining positions in Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government, including the critical posts of defense and interior ministers amid the country’s battle with the Islamic State group. Lawmakers on Saturday approved Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban, a Shiite lawmaker with al-Abadi’s State of Law political bloc, as minister of interior. Khaled al-Obeidi, a Sunni lawmaker from the besieged city of Mosul, has been selected for the post of defense minister. Control over the two powerful security ministries has long been a source of tension among Iraq’s feuding political factions. On Sept. 16, Al-Abadi put forward Sunni lawmaker Jaber al-Jabberi as his candidate for defense minister and Shiite lawmaker Riyad Ghareeb as his pick for interior minister, but both were rejected by parliament.