Judge Challenges White House Claims on Authority in Drone Killings

[think]

Source: The New York Times

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 19, 2013

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday sharply and repeatedly challenged the Obama administration’s claim that courts have no power over targeted drone killings of American citizens overseas.

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court here was hearing the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by relatives of three Americans killed in two drone strikes in Yemen in 2011: Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who had joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had no involvement in terrorism; and Samir Khan, a 30-year-old North Carolina man who had become a propagandist for the same Qaeda branch.

Judge Collyer said she was “troubled” by the government’s assertion that it could kill American citizens it designated as dangerous, with no role for courts to review the decision.

“Are you saying that a U.S. citizen targeted by the United States in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?” she asked Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general. “How broadly are you asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the limit to this?” ...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/politics/judge-challenges-white-house-claims-on-authority-in-drone-killings.html

[Ed Suspicious]

1. And by extension all citizens outside the borders of the US have no constitutional rights, therefore

can be deprived of life by the US government at any time for any reason.

[think]

2. Correctamundo

IMO

[OnyxCollie]

3. Obviously, the Judge has boxes in her garage

and should not be taken seriously.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. For all those defending Obama on this because he has a (D) after his name, what about the next Pres?

[Hydra]

6. I'm not sure how they defend it now

They(The Obama Admin) killed people for talking, and being related to someone who talked.

How the hell does that work?

[think]

5. “We don’t want these counterterrorism officials distracted by the threat of litigation,”

quoted from the article as stated by Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general.


To condescendingly paraphrase:

"We don't want our drones to be hassled by THE LAW"



JMO

[99th_Monkey]

7. How revealing is that? "distracted" by the Law. Classic hubris ~nt

[blackspade]

8. Refreshing to see at least one judge challenging this unconstitutional bullshit.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. .

.

[fascisthunter]

10. good

[Catherina]

11. I missed this earlier but it just came across my twitter feed. Rec'd

“Are you saying that a U.S. citizen targeted by the United States in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?”

Hmmm, there's a very disturbing trend here

I didn’t realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech – to free speech. .... He remains a U.S. citizen, and he enjoys certain rights as a U.S. citizen. One of those rights, from your point of view, is that he has the right to come back and face trial for the crimes he’s committed. But the rights that you’re not talking about are his right to free speech, his right to talk with whoever he wants to, freedom to assemble. I don’t understand why those rights are – why you ignore those and simply say that he has – that he’s welcome to come back to the United States to exercise his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. Why is that the only right that he gets, according to this Administration?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023239657