The Kill Book
“The president, a politician, Republican or Democrat, should never get to decide someone’s death by flipping through some flash cards and saying, ‘You want to kill him? Yeah, let’s go ahead and kill him’.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on CNN’s “State Of The Union,” Feb. 10.
The recently released 17 page report by whistleblower and lead investigator, Larry Wooten, details wide ranging misconduct by prosecutors and by BLM and other government actors. Among the accusations made by Wooten, was reference to a “kill book” kept by SAC Dan Love in which he bragged about causing the suicides of different individuals including Dr. Redd.
Beyond the suicides, it is unclear to what extent the “kill book” identified other people, including the Bundys and their supporters, as targets for assassination. There have been claims that, once all the discovery is released, not just the Wooten report, that more evidence will show that the Bundys and others were targeted for assassination.
One thing that has been confirmed is the use of snipers and the implied intent to assassinate. We already know how “trigger happy” the FBI was in shooting Vicky Weaver, while holding an infant child in her arms, at Ruby Ridge. There is probable cause to believe that the snipers, seen at the Bundy ranch, could have easily killed somebody associated with the Bundy cause.
Additionally, there is mounting evidence that a FBI sharpshooter fired at LaVoy Finicum and/or his passengers in an attempt to “execute extreme prejudice” and rid themselves of the problem that was growing like a virus. US Senator Ron Wyden, comparing the Malheur standoff to a virus, said that it was, “a situation where the virus was spreading,” and action needed to be taken.
One normally deals with a spreading virus by killing it. Were the assassination of Finicum, the attempted assassination of his passengers and the use of snipers at Bunkerville, all part of a government remedy to eradicate the virus through orders to kill?
Ammon Bundy, in a recent video, talks about some of the contents of the whistleblower report and how the FBI and the BLM put “x’s” through the pictures of Cliven Bundy and showed a disrespect for life.
A common practice by government is to label something with words that make them a euphemism, meaning to downplay the seriousness of something by giving it a better sounding name. A euphemism for assassination or kill orders is to “execute extreme prejudice”.
This term is used in reference to the government policy of assassinating enemies of the state, foreign or domestic.
The point I want to make is that, accusations and claims being made in the case of Bundy, Finicum and their supporters, regarding kill books or kill lists are not far fetched , nor are they a product of wacko conspiracy nuts, but fit a much bigger and far reaching policy by the US government to use assassination (murder) as a way to deal with people that they, a small group of decision makers, may consider “terrorists” or “virus”.
Senator Dennis Kucinich said that, “It doesn’t take too much of a stretch” to believe that the government policy to terminate terrorists in other parts of the world could also happen on US soil and against US citizens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKdA9MqQctU (at 4:00 minutes)
We have heard Senator Harry Reid refer to the Bundys and supporters as “domestic terrorists”.
Once the term “terrorist” attaches to someone, whether foreign or domestic, it seems to give the government added justification to “reach out and touch someone” in the form of a drone missile or sniper bullet or some other form of “extreme prejudice”.
THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
The above referenced video with Kucinich discusses how the constitutional rights to due process are being denied as the government seeks and destroys what they deem to be enemies of the state and then terminates them. The enormous injustice that is being perpetrated, not only against US citizens, is also against other human beings who don’t happen to be US citizens.
Our founders talked about inalienable and natural rights, rights that come to us for the simple fact of being human. The constitution was meant to not only protect people with US citizenship, but it was a model of conduct towards all mankind.
Denial of due process means that there are no checks and balances, none of the protections found in the Bill of Rights. Instead, somebody, often the POTUS, makes a unilateral decision to take somebody out, to take their life without a trial, without witnesses and cross examination and all the protections that we are supposed to have in a court of law. All that is bypassed with a drone missile or a sniper bullet.
The advantages and convenience of assassination are huge. By taking someone out, the government and their agencies are spared all the publicity, energy, expense and messiness of trials and investigations. The benefit of an assassination far outweighs its risk.
DOES THE DRONE CULTURE BLEED OVER TO THE DOMESTIC POLICIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES?
Much has been written, made into movies and discussed about the new technology, known as assassination by drone. So effective are drones in taking out enemies or people, who someone has labelled as an enemy, that they have become the new normal and have radically changed the rules of war.
We know from these sources that, not only are people deemed to be enemies of the state taken out, but that innocent bystanders are also killed. Again, the euphemism comes to the rescue by calling them, “collateral damage”.
Many people who become employees of the federal government also served in the armed forces. These people were exposed to the drone culture, either by witnessing first hand or through other accounts, of people being taken out by drone strikes or long range weapons from high flying aircraft. These future employees of the federal government (who get preferential hiring treatment as veterans) bring with them to their domestic jobs, their attitudes and their philosophies about assassination.
The same mind set that executed Vicky Weaver, and that caused Dan Love to have a kill book or that may have led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum, may, directly or indirectly, be traced back to the comprehensive program of assassination prevalent with the thousands of drones patrolling the world’s skies.
This is not a critique of effective technology, it is a critique of the lack of oversight, the lack of constitutional protections and the lack of due process used in the current program of eliminating human beings, without a trial or without adequate review or rules of evidence.
So successful has been the drone program in eliminating people, without any blowback or consequences, that it is easy to see how it would be a big temptation to apply it to domestic affairs and people who are deemed to be a “growing virus”.
As Ammon Bundy pointed out in his video, the real danger are unaccountable federal agencies. Government bureaucracies that have so much power that they can do what they want, when they want and how they want with nobody to rein them in.
The Wooten report is a glaring indictment of what happens when these powerful agencies have no oversight. Whistleblowers are punished when, and if, they have the courage to expose the misconduct and the corruption.
Which brings us back to the famous quote: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,…” Lord Acton, 1887
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews