Flying high over head, out of sight, without a sound being heard by people on the ground an un-manned drone aircraft circles and closes in on the target. From a long distance away the operator watches his screen until the shot is perfect and squeezes the trigger. A flash on the screen followed by body parts flying about confirms the kill, of an American citizen, targeted for execution by a single government official.
While that scenario might seem pure fantasy, it is not. According to a leaked Department of Justice White Paper when and who has the the right to target and kill American citizens has been defined.
[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.” [NBC]
Wayne LaPierre made a good point Sunday when he told Chris Wallace that you cannot trust this Obama administration. They said that Obamacare did not create a tax, until they needed it to be a tax. It makes one sick to think how they might use and justify the language of this "white paper".
Here, in this piece of self serving legal advice from Eric Holder to Barack Obama, the Department of Justice has concluded that an American citizen can be targeted for assassination by an "informed, high level" official even if he poses no "imminent" threat to the nation but has been involved "recently" in some activity (undefined) posing a threat of violent attack. Now what might all of this mean?
Let's say that a high level government official thinks that gun ownership and the accumulation of ammunition by a group of citizens poses a threat of violent attack and that certain people who have advocated for the right of citizens to keep and bear those arms has recently been involved in a movement to advance those rights and as far as this informed government official knows there isn't any evidence that the citizen has renounced or abandoned his activities.
Now go back and read the first paragraph above. BOOM!
Now where have we heard something like this before?
On the 15 of April 1775, when General Thomas Gage, British Military Governor of Massachusetts, was ordered to destroy the rebel's military stores at Concord. To accomplish this he assembled the "Flanking units", including Light Infantry and Grenadiers, from his Boston Garrison. In charge he put Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn. He also composed a relief column under the command of Lord Hugh Percy to leave 6 hours after the main column. In an attempt at secrecy he did not tell his officers his plan until the last minute. The problem with his security measures were that Boston had become a glass fishbowl. All rebel eyes were watching to see the British' next action, and when the garrison committed to an action, the Americans knew their every move.
At midnight on the 19th of April the British column, consisting of 650-900 troops left Boston, crossed the Charles River, followed closely by the alarm rider Paul Revere. As the British marched towards Concord, the entire countryside had been alerted to their presence, and rebel militia was deployed to meet them.
Until this time there was no armed resistance to the British that had resulted in loss of British life. Several Months earlier, Gage had attempted to destroy miliary arms at Salem and met with resistance but no shots were fired, and the British retreated without completing their objective. Lexington Militia Captain John Parker had heard of the events at Salem, and collected his men on Lexington Green to face the British column.
At dawn Smith's advanced parties under the command of Major Pitcairn, arrived at Lexington Green to see a group of armed Militia in formation across the Green. Pitcairn ordered the militia, led by John Parker, to be surrounded and disarmed. In response Parker ordered his men to disperse. Then a shot rang out. No one really knows who fired first, but the British, hearing the shot, fired upon the small group of militia, killing 8, and wounding 10 more. The militia then retreated into the woods to avoid the Briti sh fire.
So started the first battle in the American Revolutionary War.[WPI]
Of course Paul Revere could not sound the alarm if the shot came from a silent and unseen drone.
Unless of course you share this message throughout the countryside now, before that first shot is fired.