I am sorry to bring this point up once again, but I feel that someone should. The other night I watched a documentary about the killing of Osama bin Laden. In the course of it, a government official stated what I had suspected to be the case: The raid was never intended to take bin Laden alive; it was intended to kill him. If this is so, it means two things. First, the Administration lied in the aftermath of the raid when it insisted that the idea was to capture or kill bin Laden. I recall clearly Administration spokesmen stating that an effort was made to capture bin Laden, and when he and his thugs resisted, he was killed in the gun battle. (Whatever the intent of the raid, no such battle took place, as the Administration now admits.) Second, if it is true, it may mean that President Obama and his national security team are guilty of violating U.S. law.
President Ford's executive order #11905, reiterated by President Reagan's order #12333 made it the law of the land that "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." Ford's order, reinforced by President Carter, was in response to revelations about what President Lyndon Johnson referred to as "a damn Murder, Inc." the CIA was running in the Caribbean.
This continuing program of political assassination began in North Africa during WWII (under the CIA's predecessor, the OSS) with the American-led assassination of the Vichy French collaborator Admiral Darlan, continued with the murders of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, perhaps the murder of Salvatore Allende of Chile, and at least fourteen attempts to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba. In the course of these programs, the CIA entered into contracts with the worst sort of scum in the world: international contract killers such as QJ/WIN and WI/Rogue (Jose Mankel and David Dato), and the American mafia. (All of this, in my view, led eventually and inevitably, to the murder of President Kennedy.)
It was in order to prevent such lethal political activities that Ford, Carter and Reagan banned any effort by any U.S. Government official to conspire to assassinate any foreign leader. Yet this is precisely what Obama's team did. Now I understand that President G.W. Bush issued an "intelligence finding" marking bin Laden for death, but it is unclear whether this had any legal validity, and whether it overrides the three previous executive orders.
So far as I know, no one in the mainstream media is examining this possibility, in part because no one regrets bin Laden's death, and because it was ordered by a liberal Democrat president. Nonetheless, it is not the nature of the victim that matters, in this or any other case: it is the integrity of the law; law established by three former presidents and, it seems to me, violated by the present one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you really believe that Bin Laden was a foreign leader and that this was a political assassination? That strikes me as an extremely distorted view,but in keeping with your radical distrust and/or hatred of Democrats, Obama, and the mainstream meda. I hope you got as riled up at all of the lies the previous administration fed the country for 8 years.
ReplyDeleteI do not hate President Obama; at this point in my life, I don't think I hate anyone. However, I do believe that he is an incompetent leader whose administration has been a disaster for this nation. And I think the statistics bear me out on this.
ReplyDeleteAs to political lies: I do get "riled up" at them, no matter from whom they come. Recall that I grew up during the era of Nixon and Watergate and Reagan and Iran-Contra. On that score, if Nixon or Reagan had done what Obama has done, namely, ordered the assassination of a foreign leader in violation of the law, the media would have pilloried them as they did in Watergate and Iran-Contra. Ask yourself what is the difference.
On the question of bin Laden's status: He was a foreigner and was consistently referred to as the leader of Al Qaeda, and so, to my mind at least, that makes him a foreign leader. And the law specifically prohibits the murder of any foreign leader. It does not say "foreign head of state" or even "foreign political figure". I suppose if we assassinated the leader of some European opposition party who happened to be out of power at the time, that would still fall under the prohibition. Much as I would like to see, for example, the heads of Mafia families assassinated, the law forbids this and punishes it as a crime.
I am simply raising a question which it seems to me is a legitimate one, and which the press, for reasons of politics I suspect, refuses to consider.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood night, im a Portuguese man who wants to ask you something. After all this years do you still have interest in JFK assassination? Can you tell me please where is the David letter? Does he still alive? Someone open the letter? if you whant i give you my email adress. Thank you for your time. God bless.
ReplyDeleteHi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI have a question you probably are tired of hearing.
But I am very committed and attracted to JFK and 22 November 1963.
Since you put so much effort into a case and found so many new elements, why did not the authorities in the U.S. bring up the case for a new investigation? Do you think there is any chance that we ever get the right answers and confessions of what that really happened?
This tragic event will never be forgotten.
Did you Ever talked with other surviving Kennedy`s?
Regards
Christian
Oslo, Norway
David is dead and his letter, as far as I know, resides with two collectors in Dallas. To this point, they have refused to publish it on the grounds that, as it was explained to me, they are afraid to do so. Whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteI have never spoken with any of the Kennedys. The case will probably never be re-opened, and I doubt we will ever know the truth.