ACLU takes CIA to court as agency denies existence of drone programme

ACLU takes CIA to court as agency denies existence of drone programme

www.guardian.co.uk

The American Civil Liberties Union will go to court on Thursday in an attempt to get the CIA to hand over documents related to President Barack Obama's controversial "targeted killing" programme that uses unmanned drones to strike suspected Islamic militants.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"suspected Islamic militants"..

Hmmm... Right. Sure they don't mean innocent kids?

Anyway, it probably never happened right? I mean look at Area 51.. that didn't exist until the 90's.

Despite everyone knowing about it for years.

Maybe this is the same thing? Although it's been mentioned by Obama, so surely not.

What gets me about this is the CIA's refusal to obey the law... but hey, their no stranger to disobeying the law, right?

I mean didn't a Bush official say the CIA committed war crimes?

And how much drugs are they trafficking?

They seem like a real stand-up bunch of guys, really looking out for the welfare of Americans.


www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Obama is a child murderer, and I'm not saying that in a broad generic sense either. Just before American born accused terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered on Obama's order even though he had never been charged with a crime, Obama ordered the murder of his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman too.

Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his son’s death in airstrike
By Peter Finn and Greg Miller, Published: October 17, 2011

In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last month, his 16-year-old son ran away from the family home in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa to try to find him, relatives say. When he, too, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, the Awlaki family decided to speak out for the first time since the attacks.

“To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”

The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen.

Sins of the father much?

POTUS needs to shorten his title to POS.

reply to post by TTAA2012


Your point? Are you saying a 16-year-old cannot kill you? If I remember correctly, Iran used teenagers as their main stay for suicide attacks when they were attacking back at Iraq. The Teens go in first, then the older men came in behind them. They do the same thing today.

Even the Muslim men were shocked at the ferocity of the teens charging at machine gun nest; this is when Arabic Muslim beliefs took over the noticeably different Persian Muslims. Which we, the Western nations, put him into power, and it is now biting us in the ass.

It isn't a good idea to sit down and eat a meal with terrorist. Precision strikes hurt.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by TTAA2012

 

Your point? Are you saying a 16-year-old cannot kill you? If I remember correctly, Iran used teenagers as their main stay for suicide attacks when they were attacking back at Iraq. The Teens go in first, then the older men came in behind them. They do the same thing today.

Even the Muslim men were shocked at the ferocity of the teens charging at machine gun nest; this is when Arabic Muslim beliefs took over the noticeably different Persian Muslims. Which we, the Western nations, put him into power, and it is now biting us in the ass.

It isn't a good idea to sit down and eat a meal with terrorist. Precision strikes hurt.

edit on 20-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Nobody's arguing that these weren't bad guys. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial. The summary killing of American citizens with war machinery and without trial is never a good idea.

How do we know which American citizen they may designate as a bad guy (and wipe with a drone) next? Do you trust Obama on that? The CIA? That's the point....

The ACLU won't get anywhere's on this. America no longer has 3 branches of Government.

Congress eliminated the Judicial Branch, giving the President authority to kill Americans without a trial...detain Americans forever without a trial.

Congress itself gave up it's power to create budgets,

Leaving.....Dictatorship with Executive Privilege.


I don't think the ACLU will exist much longer. They themselves will be targeted next more than likely.

"Nobody's arguing that these weren't bad guys. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial. The summary killing of American citizens with war machinery and without trial is never a good idea.

How do we know which American citizen they may designate as a bad guy (and wipe with a drone) next? Do you trust Obama on that? The CIA? That's the point.... "

On that note, I would just like to add that I saw an unmanned drone with my own 2 eyes (and an extra witness) fly silently over the highway in front of my car as I drove to my berry picking spot. It just happened to coast out of sight within a 1/2 mile from the local Halliburton shop. I am sure that it had nothing to do with the killing program addressed in the OP, however, it makes one very nervous to actually see one less than 3 miles from your own house.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial. ... How do we know which American citizen they may designate as a bad guy (and wipe with a drone) next? Do you trust Obama on that? The CIA?

That depends on the circumstances. Citizenship does not impose an obligation on the government to afford someone a trial. If an individual is participating in the hostilities then he becomes a legitimate target, irrespective of his citizenship.

But I agree with the questions you raise concerning drone attacks. And for me the questions go beyond trust issues. I am unconvinced of the legality of these drone attacks. The principle I described for instance is applicable to armed conflict on a battlefield, and the United States not only has unilaterally redefined the meaning of battlefield to mean the whole world, it has basically redefined the meaning of war.

Originally posted by Extant

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial. ... How do we know which American citizen they may designate as a bad guy (and wipe with a drone) next? Do you trust Obama on that? The CIA?

That depends on the circumstances. Citizenship does not impose an obligation on the government to afford someone a trial. If an individual is participating in the hostilities then he becomes a legitimate target, irrespective of his citizenship.

But I agree with the questions you raise concerning drone attacks. And for me the questions go beyond trust issues. I am unconvinced of the legality of these drone attacks. The principle I described for instance is applicable to armed conflict on a battlefield, and the United States not only has unilaterally redefined the meaning of battlefield to mean the whole world, it has basically redefined the meaning of war.

i belive the us also now classifies a militant as a male of combat age in a cmobat zone so they dont have to report civilian deaths anymore.

I'm confused. The ACLU is an American organization, right? What gives them any say in what our government of military does overseas on foreign soil? Good luck in court ACLU...two words for ya...National Security.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial.

So before anybody is killed in a war you have to ask them for proof of their nationality, and if they are a yank you have to give them a trial.... whilst anybody else you can just kill!

I suppose they also give a trial to the US troops that they kill?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The point is, that as American citizens, if the government had evidence that they were bad guys, they were entitled to a trial.

So before anybody is killed in a war you have to ask them for proof of their nationality, and if they are a yank you have to give them a trial.... whilst anybody else you can just kill!

I suppose they also give a trial to the US troops that they kill?

you miss the point, its knowingly targetting americans abroad for assassination.Knowingly them key word.