Obama agrees to kill citizens of the United States without trial

[Remember….written law is intended for government …however government turns-it-around and MIS-applies it to those not in government …while ignoring it themselves.]

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. " 

~Aristotle

"Far best is he who knows all things himself; Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right; But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart Another's wisdom, is a useless wight."

~Hesiod

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 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 memo provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and 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.

read the complete article here

HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD THIS LAW BE?? You read it….don't let the "judges" and "executive branch" lawyers read it for you…thus considering you ward-of-the-court stupid.]

18USC1119: Law intended for government

http://1d056128.seriousdeals.net

http://3f1f46d4.seriousdeals.net PART I 

http://fdb0e801.seriousdeals.net; CHAPTER 51 

How Current is This?

(a) Definition.— In this section, "national of the United States" has the meaning stated in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(b) Offense.— A person who, being a national of the United States, kills or attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country shall be punished as provided under sections

(c) Limitations on Prosecution.— (1) No prosecution may be instituted against any person under this section

except upon the written approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General, which function of approving prosecutions may not be delegated. No prosecution shall be approved if prosecution has been previously undertaken by a foreign country for the same conduct. (2) No prosecution shall be approved under this section unless the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the conduct took place in a country in which the person is no longer present, and the country lacks the ability to lawfully secure the person's return. A determination by the Attorney General under this paragraph is not subject to judicial review.

All Persons Executing Void Judgments or Sentences are In Law, Trespassers

Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other Court. But, if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. 

This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the jurisdiction of any Court exercising authority 341#####341 over a subject, may be inquired into in every Court, when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings. 

It is well known that the jurisdiction and authority of the County Courts of Kentucky are derived wholly, from the statute law of the state. In argument, we were referred to no statute which was supposed, either in terms, or by fair construction, to confer upon the County Court any supervising or controlling power over the acts of the clerk, in taking, in his office, the acknowledgment of a deed, or in recording it, upon an acknowledgment there taken by him. We have sought in vain for such a provision, and it is believed none such exists. No such supervising and controlling power can result to the Court, from the general relations which exist between a Court and its clerk; for in this case, the statutes confer upon the clerk, in his office, a distinct, independent, personal authority, to be exercised by him upon his own judgment and responsibility. We think, therefore, with the Circuit Court that the County Court had no jurisdiction or authority to order the after certificate of Mrs. Elliott's privy examination to be made and recorded. Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. 328, 340-41 (1828) http://94189ba3.linkbucks.com

Indigenous peoples suffer abuses in race for natural resources

Among key concerns, Mr. Anaya included the gradual loss of control by indigenous peoples over lands, territories and natural resources; water source depletion and contamination for drinking, farming and grazing; the adverse effects of water and airborne pollution on overall community health; and an increase in infectious diseases spread by interaction with workers or settlers.

Another concern was the adverse impact on indigenous social structures and cultures, including alarming rates of alcoholism and prostitution previously unheard of among such peoples, imported by illegal loggers or miners, non-indigenous workers and industry personnel in specific projects, and increased traffic due to the construction of roads and other infrastructure.\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://6e1e9ab7.goneviral.com --------------------------------------------------------

Peoples suffer abuses in race for natural resources – UN rights expertSpecial Rapporteur James Anaya20 September 2011 – Extraction of natural resources and other major development projects in or near the territories of indigenous peoples is one of the most significant sources of abuse of their human rights worldwide, an independent United Nations expert warned today."In its prevailing form, the model for advancing with natural resource extraction within the territories of indigenous peoples appears to run counter to the self-determination of indigenous peoples in the political, social and economic spheres," the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples James Anaya told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.In a report based on answers to a questionnaire he distributed to governments, indigenous peoples and organizations, business corporations and other actors, he cited conflicting viewpoints on the potential adverse impact and benefits of such activities as mining, forestry, oil and natural gas extraction and hydroelectric projects in indigenous territories.

He said he had made it a priority to reconcile the differing views and courses of action to ensure the full protection of indigenous rights and promote best practices through a broad dialogue with governments, indigenous peoples' organizations, corporate actors and international institutions, in which consensus-building would be a key element.

"The lack of a minimum common ground for understanding the key issues by all actors concerned entails a major barrier for the effective protection and realization of indigenous peoples' rights," he added, praising a new Peruvian law compelling private companies to consult indigenous communities before going ahead with major projects such as mining.Among key concerns, Mr. Anaya included the gradual loss of control by indigenous peoples over lands, territories and natural resources; water source depletion and contamination for drinking, farming and grazing; the adverse effects of water and airborne pollution on overall community health; and an increase in infectious diseases spread by interaction with workers or settlers.

Another concern was the adverse impact on indigenous social structures and cultures, including alarming rates of alcoholism and prostitution previously unheard of among such peoples, imported by illegal loggers or miners, non-indigenous workers and industry personnel in specific projects, and increased traffic due to the construction of roads and other infrastructure."Submissions by indigenous peoples and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also reported an escalation of violence by government and private security forces as a consequence of extractive operations in indigenous territories, especially against indigenous leaders," Mr. Anaya noted. "A general repression of human rights was reported in situations where entire communities had voiced their opposition to extractive operations."Several governments highlighted the key importance of natural resource extraction projects for their domestic economies that, reportedly accounting for up to 60 to 70 per cent of the gross national product (GNP) in some countries, with positive benefits for indigenous peoples.

Mining companies noted that indigenous peoples have been direct beneficiaries of basic infrastructure construction such as roads, communications, electricity and water services, as well as health and educational opportunities.But most indigenous peoples underscored the adverse effects on their environment, culture and societies, which they said outweighed the minimal or short-term benefits arising out of extractive operations.

For example, a member of the Pemon people of Venezuela reported that benefits from extractive industries were not a top priority within the community, which sought "healthy communities, with no infections, in a pollution-free environment," Mr. Anaya said.Similarly, an organization representing the traditional authorities of the Cofan people of Colombia concluded that "indigenous peoples are left with no option other than to try to find something positive for their communities out of the disaster left behind by the extraction of oil, mineral, and other resources" in their lands."The vast majority of indigenous peoples' responses, many of which stemmed from the direct experience of specific projects affecting their territories and communities, rather emphasized a common perception of disenfranchisement, ignorance of their rights and concerns on the part of States and businesses enterprises, and constant life insecurity in the face of encroaching extractive activities," Mr. Anaya said.