By: The Voice of Reason |
What if I told you that on July 1, 2016, for the first time in U.S. history, President Obama signed an executive order that allows for the US military to use force against American citizens? Well, he did, and just so there’s no confusion or anyone whining about “conspiracy,” here’s a link to the executive order directly off the Whitehouse.gov website. I’ll also go through some key points below for your convenience. Sad to say, that’s not all.
What if I told you that despite alleged “fact checking sites” claims about how the constant sightings of U.N. vehicles around the country being carried on flatbed trucks has NOTHING to do with them being prepared for departure at coastal ports? How do we know? The vehicles are manufactured by BAE, and rather than make up nonsense the way ‘fact checking sites do,” World Net Daily actually contacted BAE, who denied that the vehicles belonged to their company.
By default, that means the U.N. vehicles that have been spotted belong to the U.N., and they are HERE in the UNITED STATES for a reason, and that reason is NOT to find their way to ports to be shipped overseas. To suggest otherwise, would imply that some other entity is using the same vehicles as the U.N., and painting them with U.N. colors and logos… and… well… that sounds like crazy “conspiracy nonsense” to me! Silly “fact checkers.” Get some facts will you?
“The United States has announced its support for a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts.”
Pay attention to the “new set of principals” referenced.
As you read the post that follows, and as you watch the videos below, keep the following documents in mind every time you even remotely think, “This can’t happen,” or “This is ‘conspiracy nonsense.’” Also note: These are just a handful of documents. There are hundreds of documents, probably thousands, available to the public that detail what the same said public refuses to acknowledge.
Frankly, I don’t even want to dignify what Snopes said in their explanation, however I will in the video below where I do my best to piece all this together. The REALITY is that THIS post has over 70 supporting links, with articles from dozens of different authors, from dozens of different sources contained within it. How many does Snopes have? EXACTLY!
In the following video, I explain what the July 1st executive order says, and does not say, as well as what it means, and what it does NOT mean… contrary to what our friends at “fact checking” websites like to say. Then, I’ll continue to examine the purpose of the U.N. troopd here on U.S. soil in large numbers, and expand on how they very easily fit with Obama’s new executive order.
Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force
Section 1. Purpose.
United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations.
That must be why Obama has armed the following agencies the way he has… “To protect the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense…” Said another way: “To protect the people LEADING the nation from those they seek to oppress…”
As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.
Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.
Section 2. Policy.
In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations
(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians
TRAINING EXERCISES? LIKE THESE? OR JUST TO PROTECT “VILLAGES?”
(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;
(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;
As for the questions posed in the Washington Post below about whether drone strikes are technically considered part of an “armed conflict,” as the executive order requires, or a “police action,” I submit to you that it makes no difference. Why? Recall a letter written by Rand Paul written to then Attorney General Eric Holder asking if the Obama administration thought it was legal for the U.S. to use drones to attack U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without Due Process.
In the video below Eric Holder’s response is read. After you hear it, ask yourself if you believe Loretta Lynch will take a different opinion… hence, it makes no difference.
Are drone strikes part of an armed conflict or police action?
Here’s what international law says about the use of drones. In a conflict zone, a drone strike must be in accordance with the law of armed conflict, which requires proportionality (the foreseen harms of force do not outweigh the military objective it aims to achieve) and distinction (only military objectives are legitimate targets).
So using an armed drone in a clearly defined conflict zone is not radically different than using, say, a cruise missile. It requires applying the law of armed conflict to a new technology in a familiar context.
There’s greater ambiguity about using drones outside of active conflict zones. These strikes do not take place in a context where the law of armed conflict obviously holds, so it is not clear which rules apply. So are these strikes a police action or part of an armed conflict?
Much hinges on this debate. U.S. and international law place far greater restrictions on the use of force in law enforcement than in armed conflict. Targeted killings are permissible in law enforcement only when nonlethal means are unavailable to stop an imminent threat to human life. An example would be a police sniper shooting someone about to kill a hostage.
In an armed conflict, under international law, the use of force must be limited to military targets, but these targets need not present an imminent threat to life at the time of the strike.
Some scholars argue that many U.S. drone strikes aren’t part of an armed conflict
Obama administration officials have argued that the less-restrictive laws governing force in armed conflict apply to drone strikes — even in areas without active hostilities. Specifically, officials understand these strikes as part of a non-international armed conflict against al-Qaeda and its affiliates (“non-international” meaning the armed conflict is against non-state actors rather than another state).
Obama’s executive order affirms this position, emphasizing that U.S. drone strikes meet policy standards that go beyond those required by the law of armed conflict.
Such assurances, though, will not satisfy legal scholars and just war theorists who argue that the law of armed conflict is the wrong standard for judging strikes outside areas of active hostilities. Their claim is that the U.S. wrongly applies the law of armed conflict to areas characterized by relative peace — where the rules of law enforcement should govern the use of force. An added concern is that following a less restrictive standard on the use of force means there is an increased risk of civilian casualties.
Whether or not one accepts the Obama administration’s drone policy rationale, it has important implications for civilians. Because the U.S. sees itself in an armed conflict against terrorist groups — not conventional armies — throughout the world, there are no clear geographic limits to this conflict, or the civilian populations affected by it. The conflict is wherever al-Qaeda or its affiliated groups are and capture is deemed unfeasible. The conditions of war can follow terrorists as they move, even into areas without active hostilities.
U.S. drone strikes have resulted in civilian injuries, deaths and trauma. Obama’s executive order perhaps mitigates these risks — but does not eliminate them. At the end of the day, the U.S. government chooses to accept a certain level of risk to civilian lives when conducting drone strikes against suspected terrorists.
It’s not clear the casualty numbers are correct
Concerns over the drone program’s transparency also persist after Obama’s executive order and accompanying report. Instead of estimates for individual strikes, the report provides only an overall estimate of civilian casualties in recent years, with lower numbers than those recorded by nongovernmental groups. And the administration has yet to provide the actual drone strike guidelines for areas where there are not active hostilities, though the White House says it eventually will release a redacted version.
There is little doubt after the July 1 executive order that the president hopes to bolster the legitimacy of U.S. drone policy before he leaves office. But the new requirements may have a limited effect. Obama inherited a drone program that was secretive, expansive in scope and a risk to civilian lives. Eliminating these aspects of the program has proven difficult. Institutionalizing and normalizing one of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration ultimately may be Obama’s legacy on drones.
Ben Jones has a PhD in political science from Yale University and teaches at the University of Kansas. His research on U.S. drone policy is featured in “Preventive Force: Drones, Targeted Killing, and the Transformation of Contemporary Warfare,” recently released by New York University Press.
THE USE OF U.N. TROOPS ON U.S. SOIL
In yet another step towards the establishment of a world military force that seeks peace through the absence of dissent, the United States announced its support in May for a set of principles that will allow the United Nations’ peacekeeping troops and UN police to use force in order to “protect civilians” in combat zones and areas of armed conflict.
U.S. Ambassador the U.N. and notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria, Samantha Power stated that the Kigali Principles would “make peacekeeping missions more effective, improve security and save lives.”
“The Kigali Principles are designed to make sure that civilians are not abandoned by the international community again,” said Power.
The Kigali Principles call for countries who contribute troops to UN missions to give UN Peacekeeping Commanders the authority to use military force against “armed actors with clear hostile intent to harm civilians” without waiting for approval from the United Nations and its member states.
“If a commander has to wait hours and hours for guidance from capital, it may mean not being able to react in time to repel a fast-approaching attack on a nearby village,” Power added.
The Kigali initiative was introduced by the United States, the Netherlands, and Rwanda in 2015.
TO HELP SITUATIONS LIKE THIS I’M SURE RIGHT? – 40,000 Iraqis stranded on mountain as Isis jihadists threaten death
According to a report from the Military Times, U.N. peacekeeping forces from the 29 countries signing on to the principles are now required to act if civilians are in danger.
Twenty-nine countries represents less than a third of United Nations members and include:
Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Djibouti, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malawi, Montenegro, Netherlands, Niger, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Ukraine, Uganda, United States, Uruguay and Zambia
Notably absent from the list of signatories is Russia, China, Iran, and Lebanon as well as a number of other “anti” NATO countries.
For more on the The Kigali Principles, don’t take my word for it, read them yourself!
As I said in my video above, the Stealth Bomber wasn’t created to sit in a hanger and do nothing. Billions of dollars and millions of man hours went into its design and implementation. The same can be said about the plans for Martial Law by a tyrannical government. Why do people think they are mutually exclusive? Look throughout history… is government turning on its people a foreign concept? Hardly. The following Executive Orders are all laid out at Sweetliberty.org, and they further spell out the sad truth that one day (probably sooner before later), our government has plans to turn on us. They’ve invested too much time and effort not to.
THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.