The Obama administration thinks that it is within their rights to kill an American Citizen who says or does things that they don’t like, and say that they were justified in the assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, but many people disagree, and call the killing an assassination or an outright murder.

If the Obama administration feels that they have the right to kill an American Citizen, why are they keeping the justification a secret?

The truth is that the Obama administration really does not have an authority to kill American Citizens, without a trial, just because Obama doesn’t like the person, or what they say or do. Obama is scared that when the truth comes out, and the American People see that they did not have the authority to kill an American Citizen, that the shit is going to hit the fan.

Fortunately, for Obama, the majority of the corrupt Obama-Swooning media will never run a story on the ignoring of our nation’s laws by the Obama administration. We do think the truth will eventually come out, and we think when it does, it will be the final nail in the coffin that is Obama’s presidency.

Just imagine the furor that would have erupted if it were President Bush who authorized the killing of an American Citizen.. and then would not release the proof of justification they say they have. Without fail, every nut-job liberal would have been calling for Bush’s arrest and  impeachment.

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”

Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It’s time for the president who promised to create “a White House that’s more transparent and accountable than anything we’ve seen before” to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, “The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion.” And then there’s the fact that “a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department — rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example — had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,” he adds. “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org