White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I certainly hope this does not apply to drone usage in the United States.


It bothers me a little that no MSM outlets have even showed a hint of sniffing this yet, even as a "D Section" article. For those of you that don't get the newspaper reference I apologize.


See below...


A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.

United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens abroad in late 2011 [pdf].

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US nationals with alleged ties to al-Qaeda, were killed on September 30 of that year using drone aircraft; days later, al-Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was executed in the same manner. Although the Obama administration has remained largely quiet about the killings in the year since, a handful of statements made from senior White House officials, including Pres. Barack Obama himself, have provided some but little insight into the Executive Branch’s insistence that the killings were all justified and constitutionally-sound. Attempts from the ACLU and the Times via FOIA requests to find out more have been unfruitful, though, which spawned a federal lawsuit that has only now been decided in court.


Source
edit on 3/1/13 by JAK because: External quote tags added




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 

It is foreign usage as I understand but it does whittle away at the protections against assassinations of US citizens by their government even in this country...."secret": so much for "full transparency" by this administration.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
An American abroad is not awarded the same freedoms as one in the states. Just ask the military members.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by oonkala
 


That is true, I am in the Air Force and SOFA (Status of Forces Agreements) vary wildly from country to country. I'm not sure what the rules that apply to civilians are, but they probably vary likewise. I'm sure there are some ex-pats on here that can confirm that for us.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


I think this picture explains it all:



I'm surprised that this thread has not received more attention as this should be a very important issue to Americans, and the rest of the world.

Drone warfare is a cowardly way to murder women and children just to have it justified as collateral damage due to the "evil terrorists" hiding amongst women and children.

edit on 1/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The constitution does not say that as soon as an American citizen Crosses the imaginary line known as the border, that they lose their rights. Being that the constitution is the highest law of the land, this judge should be arrested.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
That judge would have made a totally different ruling if those Americans had been named "Joe Brown" or "Tom Smith".

This is a new breed of PC racism. You look like an ay-rab! We can kill you with impunity!

THE PROBLEM IS.... eventually those drones WILL be killing Joe Browns & Tom Smiths. And then it will be TOO LATE to change.
edit on 3-1-2013 by Schkeptick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I remember when this happened. I was a fairly new member on ATS and stated "Good". Obama was doing something right for a change.

It was one of the times that a few members took their time and explained how this was wrong. This was against the Constitution. That if this continued, we could be looking at drones (armed drones) flying over the US.

This sets a precedent. It allows a president to violate anyone's Constitutional rights. Be they obviously criminal or not.

To those who approve of this simply because Obama is POTUS, imagine a republican president with the same "authority".

This ruling should scare the hell out of everyone.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


What legal basis does the Executive Branch assert to justify killing a U.S. citizen without due process?

The Constitution state that you can't even search them without probably cause and a warrant.

This means that FBI agents can simply kill U.S. citizens if Obama deems those citizens a threat.

The people need to take back their country. We are idiots for voting the same cabal back into office year after year.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
OH #!
They just TOLD you you voted them back!
What dont you get about the US goverment?
The 2 party system is DOA pal....it NEVER existed!
They have been killing Americans for decades! at home and abroad!



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Well since they can do that. I can keep my guns secret. Sorry don't want to turn this into a gun thread. If they have right to have un-manned missle equipped drones with advanced satellite tech to protect our nation, I can have my semi auto AR-15 to protect my residence. Bam, now that's a run on sentence.
edit on 4-1-2013 by RightlyCurious because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sconner755
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


What legal basis does the Executive Branch assert to justify killing a U.S. citizen without due process?

NDAA.

The Constitution state that you can't even search them without probably cause and a warrant.

Yes it does. But the courts haven't ruled NDAA unconstitutional. So it appears they know something about what the constitution says that you and I don't.


This means that FBI agents can simply kill U.S. citizens if Obama deems those citizens a threat.

Perhaps not just the FBI.

The people need to take back their country. We are idiots for voting the same cabal back into office year after year.

Well, what are you waiting for?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 



I certainly hope this does not apply to drone usage in the United States.




A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.


I think this part answers that. The statement does not say "Americans" abroad, just Americans, so I'd take that for the use of drones here in the US too.
Funny how the press is so quite about this.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


It will likely become an important issue to Americans when their wedding parties start getting bombed. Unfortunately, people generally aren't going to have much empathy until they see these things for themselves. Peace...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
nothing new, what was it like being a native american asking for a treaty to be upheld, or a black panther trying to feed the poor kids in the neighborhood, or a hippie protesting the war, or a whacko in waco, or a whistleblower, or a tax protester, or someone trying to leave bottles of water in the desert?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
so could this ruling be interpeted that if the USA began to kill americans in the USA then it is none of our bnusiness who they kill and why?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


I think this picture explains it all:




Obama had better be careful.

Nobody is the most powerful person in the world...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
What is the point of the Freedom of Information Act then? Oh...we must protect national security. Our national security was F'd and it all came from Washington D.C. anyways.

On the bright side...

If you guys take a careful look at the ruling, the judge only pertains it to "if they need to explain why they did it".

This ruling doesn't give the Obama Administration or any other administration the right or privilege to commit such heinous acts against Americans, and ESPECIALLY to lawyers who decide the fates of Americans like Anwar Al Awlaki and his 16 year old son whom was drone strike murdered at a family BBQ for goodness sakes.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 

We have a tyrannical government who is taking over our country. If we do not stop them this will happen in America, and who is to say it hasnt already. Its not like the news is gonna tell you about it. Ive given up on complaining about the NDAA. Not many care, they believe in our tyrannical government. They are absorbed in themselves and do not take the time to understand why things are so bad. People do not understand that the government works for us. Our government should be in prison for treason, and just because a judge said its ok does.not mean that it is. Judges are bought and paid for just like our media.

Americans are in for a rude awakening........

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by michelle555
 


Can't disagree with a thing you said. There is no press anymore, all they are is a mouth piece for the president and his minions, instead of our watch dogs against the government.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join