The Mike Church Show World HQ
The Mike Church Show World HQ

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – From Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News — this is posted at NBCNews.com, so I’m going with this based on the sterling reputation of NBC News.  “Exclusive: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans.”  You mean they’ve actually fessed up?  Not only do they do it, but they plan to keep on doing it.  If anyone is keeping score around here, they plan to continue doing it. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  From Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News — this is posted at NBCNews.com, so I’m going with this based on the sterling reputation of NBC News.  “Exclusive: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans.”  You mean they’ve actually fessed up?  Not only do they do it, but they plan to keep on doing it.  If anyone is keeping score around here, they plan to continue doing it.  This story just came out this morning, so I have not had a chance to read all three and a half printed pages.  I read about one and three-quarters during the last timeout.  There’s some shocking stuff in here.  It’s been reposted a couple times, so I think it’s worthy of our attention here today.

[reading]

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

[end reading]

Mike:  In other words, someone in the Obama administration leaked this.  We have a Deep Throat in there.  No one is supposed to leak this stuff out.  We’re not supposed to have these things.  Of course, we’re supposed to be good little peasants and go about our way.  [mocking] “Nothing to see here.  Move along, citizen.  You will obey your federal overlords.  You don’t need to see the contents of our secret deliberation, citizen.”

[reading]

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

[end reading]

Mike:  Are we going to split hairs here?  These men had funny-sounding last names.  We know they were commiserating with bad guys.  You got a chance to use a drone on them.  Due process, what’s that?  Take them out.  That’s how they’re dealt with these days.

[reading]

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

[end reading]

Mike:  So now all that is needed is for some bureaucrat to say that Ted Nugent guy poses an imminent threat of violent attack.  You’ve got a drone over Texas?  Find him; take him out.  Of course, that would apply to you going off to your gun shows and bringing the supplies purchased therein into your house, then meeting with a bunch of your likeminded friends who might get together to do some target shooting.  [mocking] “That looks pretty violent and suspicious to me.  Is there a drone nearby?”  This isn’t funny, just dramatizing this out.  I do this under risk of loss of life.  The significant people in the U.S. that oppose the general government and attain any sort of notoriety whatsoever suddenly find themselves six feet under.  I wonder if that’s a coincidence.

[reading]

But the 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. [Mike: Did I just read that right? Hold on, let’s back the tape up and read that again, shall we?] “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.

[end reading]

Mike:  Gee, that’s kind of permissive, isn’t it?  You don’t have to have anything specific?  You just have to have some cat in some bunker somewhere staring at a video monitor going, [mocking] “I don’t know, Jonesy.  My instinct is pretty good on this one, Jonesy.  What do you think?” — “I can take him out, Captain.  I can take him out right now.  I can take him out, Captain.” — “Jonesy, make your height 38,000.” — “Height 38,000, Captain.” — “Jonesy, prepare 500,000 bomb.” — “500,000-pound bomb prepared, Captain.” – “Jonesy, see that mass of people down there?  Our guys is in there.” — “I have the mass of people targeted, Captain.” — “Jonesy, on my mark, I want you to launch.  I want you to drop that ordnance.”  I know I’m exaggerating with a 500,000-pound bomb, just to make a point.  Read the entire white paper at the NBC link I will add to the Pile of Prep today, on the Mike Church Show Fan Page on Facebook, on the website at MikeChurch.com and on the Twitter feed, Twitter.com/thekingdude.

[reading]

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.” [Mike: Did you ask him? Did you send him an email and say: Hey, dude, we know you were hanging out with Akbar. You gonna renounce that stuff? If not, you may want to look out that window there, Larry. This is what happens.] The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

[end reading]

Mike: They don’t have to define it. It’s whatever they say it is. Remember, folks, this is fiat government. This is government at will. It is what they say it is. Our laws are what they say they are. Their ability to kill people is what they believe their ability to be at that particular moment in time. But we’re not a militarized society at all, no.

[reading]

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of Americans lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation.

[end reading]

Mike: In other words, are we going to lose any guys going in there and trying to get this dude and deliver him some due process? If that’s the case, send the drones. What was that old song, Send in the Clowns? [singing] Send in the drones. There must be drones. Maybe this year.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Become a CRUSADER Today!

SUPPORT THE MIKE CHURCH SHOW
AND BECOME A PREMIUM MEMBER TODAY!
CHOOSE A MONTHLY SUPPORT LEVEL
$9.00 Basic Founders Pass
$16.67 PREMIUM Founding Brother
$49.99 PREMIUM Founding Father

GO PREMIUM FOR 30 DAYS FREE!

Click for 30 days FREE of the Mike Church Show

Listen To The KingDude Every Day on SubscribeStar!

Signup for Mike’s Daily [r]epublican Newsletter

Subscribe: Red Pill Diary Podcast

Scroll Up