October 09, 2011 journal, Occupy Wall Street has no leader therefore they are chaff that will blow away according to Fox and the national media but I say that is wonderful that everybody can demonstrate for themselves individually not being slaved to others ideas. Michael Moore says for every American to get them a sign & stand in front of their local Bank of America, that will jerk a crick in their neck. This is war against the scavengers of Wall Street and a corrupt banking industry that began with Woodrow Wilson and the Fed in 1913 when the Zionist bankers of Europe conspired to steal the American currency and did by ramroding it through Congress while the U.S. Congress was officially recessed. It has been a hundred years and every year America has been taken to the cleaners by these scavengers of the Rothschild Bank of the Red Shield or the Red Star that is not of David. So we have had the 1913 Federal Reserve Act establishing the Federal Reserve private central Bank conveying all of America's wealth over to those scavenger Russian Khazars. What a mammoth heist the Zionist false Israelites pulled off, bigger than nine double one. The Disciples of Christ endured the government system often being thrown in jail even for preaching the gospel. John the Baptist lost his head for preaching the gospel truth. A 1000 demonstrators have been jailed in the Big Apple New York City Mystery Babylon. This is the price of change but change is coming not through the last president elected but by the people and the sight and sound though their protests in the Halls of Congress and on Wall Street which is the sacred hiding place for the spandrels that have their hands in our pockets and are bleeding us dry everyday. The Illuminati's manifesting their smarts on our dollar bills are boasting that they are smarter than we are and they are our enemy. This is a historic occasion being the first real protest and is threatening to unseat the beast that binds us in human slavery to satisfy their selfishness and thirst for blood of America. Unknowingly the beast has set forth their own summary judgment by drawing too heavy. God has placed the common people in their doorway kind of like his disciples were just common folks as fisherman and working-class, uneducated without national prominence. This world has always been an enemy of the common people and the majority of people. It is not necessary for these demonstrators to go up to the top of those tall buildings when God is going to bring those people out into the openings to unsafe areas for examination. The destruction of Wall Street has begun and all the demonstrators need to do is to march around it like the walls of Jericho came tumbling down when the real Children of Israel marched around them. These poor peasants have much more power than they ever do know about in defying their enemy that are depending on the police and army to protect them. God loves the poor people and will be with them and feed them as Christ fed the 5000 beside the Sea of Galilee with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. He is our creator and our Lord. So far the J name has not been mentioned in this venture but it will be mentioned sooner or later. America must identify the bankers by their original race being Zionist of Russia. We do not really need to pray for anything specifically other than for God to move that mountain out of the way of the American people and that request has been pre granted. Let those Wall Street vultures pray to their money to save them from being overthrown. All the king's armies and all of the King's men cannot put these pigs back together again. This is not a political confrontation therefore Wall Street has no power to control it at all. Newt Gingrich talking on CNN said Ron Paul has his law wrong in saying the President had no right to assassinate an American citizen without due process of the law and he is right. Newt is saying the president got one thing right to kill an enemy combatant. The term enemy combatant is not mentioned in the Constitution. Paul says even the Israelis gave the German Nazis a trial. There is now talk of impeachment of this president for this he has done in assassinating an American citizen without procedure arrest and a fair trial. I would say I agree with impeachment because it has to stop someplace after being started by George W. Bush and continuing on into this administration but I am afraid he will put me on a secret enemy combatant list for opposing anything he does and even his politics. It is signs of a tyrant in action trampling the Constitution and Bill of Rights under his feet. Meanwhile, Iran said "the United States better not fly Predator Drones over their space". The US is saying the drones allow killing of the enemy with minimum innocent civilians. America is digging in deeper under the command of the Royal Israeli Communist militia. I pray the money will fail so America will be forced to bring the troops home and stop the killing. Even the military now is admitting that these wars were a big mistake. We cannot replace human life or destruction of the lands or the Iraqi water filtration system of 1991. I call it murder the same as I call abortion murder, America should cease and desist. America is too far gone off the deep end and cannot turn back to restore human dignity. The demonstrators on Wall Street are mad and discussed with the banks and government. Millions are homeless & hungry in this country. That always leads to protest government. I say this is just the beginning of a massive movement to bring down an oppressive rule. The compost of Wall Street needs to be removed, the Fed and the Zionists all deported. Quoting Elizabeth Warren-"Right now on Wall Street, the only people that the politicians and police are applying the law to are the protesters. For years, those who corrupted our banking system have gotten away with the biggest financial heist in history - and gotten bonuses and a government bailout for bringing America to its knees." Very well said. Gareth Porter, Truthout: "The starting point for a citizens' campaign for a new national security strategy should be to call attention to the reality that US wars - supposedly against terrorism-have produced clear winners and losers. The winners are the leaders of the military, the Pentagon, the CIA and their private sector and elected political allies. Aggressive US wars are not merely the result of mistaken policies, but of the national security institutions pursuing their own interests at the expense of the interests of the American people." The losers are dead in their graves, trillions in debt and lonesome relatives at home alone suffering from the lost of their loved ones thanks to war lords. Secret US Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen-No live captures allowed. by: Charlie Savage, The New York Times News Service | Report Washington - The Obama administration's secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document. The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama - to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial. The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights, various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki's case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat. The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties. But the document that laid out the administration's justification - a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 - was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it. The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him. The administration did not respond to requests for comment on this article. The deliberations to craft the memo included meetings in the White House Situation Room involving top lawyers for the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and intelligence agencies. It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation. Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist - in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States - to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks. Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a "cobelligerent" with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.. Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority. It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn. Among them was an executive order that bans assast order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict. A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not "murder" to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war. But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen's domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility. Then there was the Bill of Rights: the. Fourth Amendment's guarantee that a "person" cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life "without due process of law." The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy's forces to be detained orprosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies. It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people. o The document's authors argued that "imminent" risks could include those by an enemy leader who is in the business of attacking the United States whenever possible, even if he is not in the midst of launching an attack at the precise moment he is located. There remained, however, the question of whether-when the target is known to be a citizen - it was permissible to kill him if capturing him instead were a feasible way of suppressing the threat. Killed in the strike alongside Mr. Awlaki was another American citizen, Samir Khan, who had produced a magazine for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsulapromoting terrorism. He was apparently not on the targeting list, making his death collateral damage. His family has issued a statement citing the Fifth Amendment and asking whether it was necessary for the government to have "assassinated two of its citizens." "Was this style of execution the only solution?" the Khan family asked in its statement. "Why couldn't there have been a capture and trial?" Last month, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, delivered a speech in which he strongly denied the accusation that the administration had sometimes chosen to kill militants when capturing them was possible, saying the policy preference is to interrogate them for intelligence. The memorandum is said to declare that in the case of a citizen, it is legally required to capture the militant if feasible - raising a question: was capturing Mr. Awlaki in fact feasible? It is possible that officials decided last month that it was not feasible to attempt to capture him because of factors like the risk it could pose to Americancommandos and the diplomatic problems that could arise from putting ground forces on Yemeni soil. Still, the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan demonstrates that officials have deemed such operations feasible at times. Last year, Yemeni commandos surrounded a village in which Mr. Awlaki was believed to be hiding, but he managed to slip away. The administration had already expressed in public some of the arguments about issues of international law addressed by the memo, in a speech delivered in March 2010 by Harold Hongju Koh, the top State Department lawyer. As to whether it would violate Yemen's sovereignty to fire a missile at someone on Yemeni soil, Yemen's president secretly granted the United States that permission, as secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks have revealed. The memorandum did assert that other limitations on the use of force under the laws of war - like avoiding the use of disproportionate force that would increase the possibility of civilian deaths - would constrain any operation against Mr. Awlaki. That apparently constrained the attack when it finally came. Details about Mr. Awlaki's location surfaced about a month ago, American officials have said, but his hunters delayed the strike until he left a village and was on a road away from populated areas. This "legal memo" by the U.S. Justice Department essentially gives the U.S. executive authority the right to murder a U.S. citizen based entirely upon its own determination of desirability. Accordingly, the legal memo expressly disestablishes the rule of law in America regarding capital crimes and turns the rights and liberties established by U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights into a hollow joke. The fact is that before his assassination, Mr. Awlawki was never even charged with any crime at all let alone was ever given his day in court. No jury of his peers convicted him or heard any evidence against him. No evidence of guilt in any crime has in fact ever been provided by the U.S. Government at all except for its bald assertions of Mr. Awlawki's terrorist complicity. As long this so-called legal rationale is allowed to stand, there is no rational way to maintain that the Bill of Rights has any meaning at all. As an American I am ashamed to admit it, but the sad truth is that we are being turned into a banana republic just like every other piece of shit dictatorship in the world." Kevin Schmidt-There can be no "legal case" for shredding the Constitution. Our representatives took an oath to protect the Constitution. They did not take an oath to protect the people. "Freely defend the rights of the Constitution with your life, and the Constitution will defend your right to live freely." One needs proof, not FASCIST LIES, and trial and charges are important , not only for Americans, tortured, but all other HUMAN BEINGS tortured and falsely charged with crimes, by idiots like you. Calbert-Disgusting. The corporate news and Charlie Savage have zilch, zero credibility and represent the corrupt and lawless apologetics for the criminal President and Empire they serve. Notice the mealy mouthed, corrupted terminologies, used by liberals to justify lawlessness , criminality and Fascism. Notice the words "narrowly drawn": And notice the slippery, corrupt use of "MILITANT/S" as a reason for criminality, lawlessness, fascist foreign policies. How many innocent people were reported by the FASCIST PENTAGON as "militants killed", only to be caught in their lying propaganda. The misuse of "War front" and "enemy combatant" to justify WAR CRIMES, murderof Americans, innocent civilians shows how the CORRUPTION OF IDEOLOGY has led to the CORRUPTION OF LAWS themselves. We have both Bush and Obama, using the laws to justify torture, illegal kidnappings, renditions, no trials, secret courts, secret laws?????, to justify these fascist tyrants and their criminals wars. Glenn Greenwald does a far better analysis of the LAWLESSNES of all three branches of government that has leglalized criminality, hence legalized fascism, hence legalized torture, assassinations of anyone DEEMED, CORRUPTED INTO A MILITANT/TERRORIST, except the NAZIS THEMSELVES, the two party fascist political system: Various matters. The CIA skates free again-By Glenn Greenwald. (1) I have an Op-Ed in The Guardian today regarding the complete lack of consequences for the CIA's illegal destruction of interrogation videos - culminating in a federal judge's refusal this week to hold the CIA in contempt despite recognizing that they violated his own order-and what this reflects about America's two-tiered justice system. It can be read here. THE PRESENT POLITICAL PARTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGES THE RULES TO FIT THEIR PRESENT PERSONAL AGENDA, EVEN DESTROYING THE CONSITUTION. THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS MUST SUFFER AT THE HANDS CORRUPT POLITCAL OFFICALS AND GREEDY WALL STREET, BANKERS AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. Kevin Schmidt The Republicans and the DINOs within the Democratic Party have merged into the Democratic-Republican Party, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilded Fascist Elite, Ltd., a Bilderberg Production. Kevin Schmid-But most call for his fair trial so that can be determined legally. Oops! Scratch that ! Most are now decrying his unfair execution by an unlawful vigilante U.S. Government lynch mob. Ericalbert-So any critic against FASCIST AMERIKAN VIOLENCE saying they have the right to defend themselves, makes him a TRAITOR????? THE U.N. Charter written by U.S. Nuremberg Nazi trial prosecutors clearly states that countries invaded, illegally, occupied illegally, attacked illegally have a right to resist FASCIST MILITARY NAZI SHITS. If drones, covert military Nazis invaded us, would we call those who attacked us Traitors???? La Fayette like so many mindless Amerikans easily accepts the criminality of our leaders, which raises the question that if the proof was there, why were there no attempts to arrest, prosecute him, UNLESS SO MUCH OF THIS FASCIST BULLYING IS BASED ON NAZI VALUES. ericalbert-Hank 1 always describes his love affair with U.S. FASCISM, AND ISRAEL/ZION-IST FASCISM......hence a complete Nazi thug for both U.S. FASCIST EMPIRE AND ISRAEL. Oh really?? The fascist CIA worked to get Nazis into power, Japanese fascists were used as proxy occupiers in Korea, to continue Fascist imperialism, but of course never killed for being fascists, only part of the WESTERN FASCISM...that clearly marks the whole DEGENERATION OF AMERIKA FASCIST EMPIRE, FASCIST NATO, FASCIST ISRAEL. Fighting for Fascism means 90 percent of Amerikans would die instantly from your logic. They think fighting for Fascism is FREEDOM. Orwell and Nazi Germany can tell you all about this inversion of IDEOLOGY, TOTALITARIANISM. It is the whole of Western political culture, that falsely claims to fight against dictators, yet embraces them covertly, sometimes even overtly. Some republican candidates have promised to reform the constitution if elected. Outdated they appear. "Brilliant lawyers" have already stretched an "elastic" constitution/legal system, superseding the functions of the congress and the supreme court. It's enough to write a"paper" and fame instantly propel the authors to the finest teaching institutions or to a higher judicial post. Their "legal innovativeness" consisted in downgrading the constitution into a "simple piece of paper." Overcoming a piece of museum and eliminating an obstacle to the effective functioning of an empowered "decider". Like a CEO, decisions have to be made timely and without delays. Better if they coincide with approaching elections or to distract subjects from their daily hardships. As per some comments here, the ramboidal mentality rejoices. The strategy works. The metamorphosis of unelected "street lawyers" into a congress/supreme court combo represents a legal breakthrough of post-modernization. This may explain, among others, the legal shield of many honorable banking thieves, emboldened by sweet government's bailouts to continue "legally" assaulting customers (illegally protected). So no point thinking straight, it's not longer a rational or logic world. 'Legal justification' does follow 'traitor'; and, live capture might have been doable... however, a lot at play behind this theatre - from analysis that's out there, this seems likely: probably necessary to wack al-Awlaki (CIA lackey), as he may well have been unwitting and just discovered how he was being used and was preparing to blab, or just wanted 'in from the cold', for sure knew too much and if disgruntled enough, might also have blabbed he served both as a recruiting beacon for fresh jehadi meat (essential for the global war of terror), e.g. the knicker-bomber-X-mas-2009 patsy, and as a convenient sheep-dip for patsies already in play, e.g. Fort Hood 'jihadi shooter' Hasan. ABC news reported, that Awlaki said, "I am astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world?" And, that Hasan and Awlaki exchanged as many as 18 e-mails in the year prior to the [Fort Hood] shooting. From that, it's hard to say if he was a witting or unwitting asset. Whichever, he was expendable,"