E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
U.S. Air Force handout
An image from the U.S. Air Force shows a MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft.
A federal court of appeals handed a victory -- although a very limited one -- to the ACLU on Friday in the civil rights group's effort to use the Freedom of Information Act to get documents from the CIA about US drone strikes overseas.
A three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the CIA cannot simply refuse to respond by saying that it cannot confirm or deny the existence of any records. That position, the court said, has been completely undercut by public statements about the drone program made by President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.
"Given these official acknowledgments that the United States has participated in drone strikes, it is neither logical nor plausible for the CIA to maintain that it would reveal anything not already in the public domain to say that the Agency 'at least has an intelligence interest' in such strikes," the court said.
Those statements, the court said, make it "implausible that the CIA does not possess a single document on the subject of drone strikes."
But Friday's court victory does not hand the ACLU the key to the documents.
The court sent the case back to a federal judge to decide whether the CIA can still argue that actually handing over any documents it has would damage national security. In fact, Friday's decision even holds out the possibility that the CIA may not have to be very explicit at all in saying what documents it has and why it wants to withhold them.
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the CIA three years ago, seeking records pertaining to the use of drones by the CIA or the armed forces for targeted killings overseas. When the agency failed to respond in time, the ACLU went to court. A federal judge accepted the CIA’s argument that even answering the question of whether it had any drone records would raise national security problems. That ruling was reversed by the appeals court.
Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who handles the case, called Friday's decision an important ruling.
“It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIA's interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the program's scope and legal basis. It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them," he said.
Leave a Comment:
I would be for anything that would bring us all back to the days of pre-911. Life in the US is almost unbearable since the folks with a desire to control every little thing for your safety and their gratification. I never realized there were so many people in the US willing to destroy the country to save it in their twisted mind. Fighting a war over there so we don't have to fight one here is not valid when there is many wars in progress. Fighting an enemy you can recognize is preferable to one you can't and lives among you.
Maybe the ACLU could work a deal with Iran. I hear Iran has an almost new one-owner RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone just chock full of things that the CIA knows nothing about.
Even the left has enemies in the left. The ACLU has no business interfering with national security. The left of the left has given secrets to the enemy. Cell phone tracking among others
Until "We the People" peacefully defy all that the gov't is doing to steal our freedom and liberty nothing will get better. We must also vett our local politicians since they are the only ones that we can get to listen to us. Time is running out. Try to organize local groups or join one in your area.
Talk about TWISTED govt---watch this youtube video---PoW8sm5Jv3w
I would rather live in comparative poverty, with dignity and honesty, than 1st world opulence, within a fear-saturated, hypocritical, de-humanized Police State.
The "living" of life is mostly in the mind...not in the "material."
No matter what, we will all be "dust in the wind."
For sure, and if U smart follow this .....
.....NONE resources are use to STOP Corruption and Corrupts! That is why this is what happening to my family and many, many families all over USA for Protesting on the Streets and exposing Corruption and Corrupts, still we are KILL w/out GUNS!! We have been "Kill Alive" because of the Retaliation of some JUDGES! Read my tweets at pradera123 Watch video & make it Viral, so it does not happen to anybody else!
@Marina Meadows
I can barely read your post, why would I even attempt to read your tweets?
Marina. most real people don't text talk all the time and some of us don't do it at all. try speaking real english and maybe you might get positive responses.
Wow, it was the FBI and now it is the CIA who is getting hammered in court.
I wonder who in this administration is going to be next.....let me guess.....DHS, DOJ, DSHS, DOE.....take your pick of any Cabinet member.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marina is apparently not a U.S. citizen....talking about corruption, riots, and videos.....maybe French, or German, or Spanish, or Mexican, or maybe Egyptian (notice the vase in the background). She certainly needs more English lessons.
Why is the ACLU fighting for a bunch of Al-Quaida members? Seriously we should be using a drone on the ACLU for being terrorist sympathizers. What a bunch of self-righteous idiots.
I want the drug Marina's on ... without the stupid side effects.
And warren; just who do you perceive to be the enemy here at home? The half that agree with you, or the half that don't?
Amen to that, brother.
You either support the US Constitution or you do not...
The CIA/Obama's policy of 'Double Tapping' a suspected terrorist site. Directly targets the 'First Responders' and medical personnel...
This is against US Laws, Presidential EOs, International Laws and the Geneva Conventions...
NYU and Stanford Law Schools say we(USA) are committing a war crime that is considered a terrorist act by our own government — double tap.
What is double tap? It’s when you blow up someone, and when you see first responders and family coming to help, you blow them up too.
While the Military is held responsible for their targeting of INNOCENTS with armed drones & other weapons systems. The CIA has been operating with impunity for years...
Use the Drones AND hold the Operators ACCOUNTABLE, including those that set the POLICIES...
Ac, How many years are you talking about? And where did you get this information in the first place? Or will divulging that information constitute a threat to national security?
John Bryant,
When Obama assumed office he directed the CIA to abolished interrogations & torture of terrorist suspects...
The focus of the CIA was then turned to the use of DRONES to remove terrorist suspects...
The 'double tap' Policy was later adopted. Just Google - double tap CIA drones + 94,000 results...
The expansive use of "double-tap" drone strikes is just one of a number of more recent phenomena in the covert war run by the US against violent Islamists that has been documented in a new report by legal experts at Stanford and New York University - Living Under Drones... reference - http: //livingunderdrones.org/download-report/
More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Natoattack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.
"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it."
The product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars. And their verdict is damning.
Throughout the 146-page report, which is released today, the authors condemn drone strikes for their ineffectiveness. reported by - Jerome Taylor Tuesday 25 September 2012 in The INDEPENDENT in the UK...
Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best."
If you have been following the World outrage over the use of these weapons, this is not NEW NEWS. Just to the US sheep being spoon fed by the US Media...
As I read the Article the question at issue revolves around strikes by drones that have been made not about the planning of future strikes, where drones are based, etc. The enemy surely knows when and where a drone strike occurs. How can something so obviously known by the enemy be withheld from the American people as "secret"?
At 1.17 I may have miss spoken. I said "The enemy surely knows when and where a drone strike 'occurs." I should have said "...when and where a drone strike 'occurred'."
Wow, so many results! It must be true then.
I just Googled "Fart kills dog" and got over 9 million results. Mine must be true too!
Why do we need 30,000+ drones in this country? What are they for? They were used overseas for war purposes- so what do we need them here for?
To watch the border to Mexico? Why bother- we have millions of illegals here already, about to receive amnesty at taxpayer expense.
To catch speeders on the road and receive tickets issued via mail? Doubt it.
Divided evenly, there would be 600 drones per state; probably fewer issued for small areas like Rhode island and more for Texas or California. That's quite a lot. Hmmm...
ProFreedom-5130956
Do I need to point out it was the Conservatives in the House who proposed, drafted and sponsored the FAA re-authorization that had the bit about drones in it? Figured I'd just mention that before anyone tried to blame this on Obama.
https://votesmart.org/bill/13019/38090/federal-aviation-administration-act-of-2012#34315
Chris- yet, it IS happening under this administration. Explanation please.
What am I supposed to explain? In 2012 a bunch of Republicans thought it would be a good idea to tack on a little blurb requiring the FAA to allow drones to fly in the US. If you recall, the FAA went unfunded for a few weeks in Fiscal Year 2012 while they hashed this out. I don't recall there being any huge debate about it at the time so why wouldn't he have signed into law after they handed it to him?
The use of drones in the United States should be very limited. There is no need for thousands of them. Anyone that added that "blurb" into law should be booted out of office, the law repealed and new elections held. Thousands of drones mean government mechanics, government pilots, reports, interpreters, etc., etc., etc. growing government that much more. Much more than ever needed. A few dozen nationwide might be of assistance and could be shared between agencies. Keep the costs down and be a responsible government. There are idiots on both sides in the congressional offices and the fact this passed is proof. In my opinion.
AC Robertson-2414093
since when has obama ever been concearned with what is legal and what isn't. It is his agenda that is importaint, not the law.
ProFreedom-5130956 and Chris
why do we need the drones?
For the same reason that the homeland security people need another 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, thousands more fully automatic weapons and however all the fully armored mine resistaint personel carriers thay just got.
We're the terrorists now.
There was a Progressive who said that "returning American soldiers were the biggest terrorist threat America faces".
Let me guess who said that......last name starts with a "P" and she hails from that Progressive State near the Pacific Ocean.
Palin.
She's much older and ugly compared to Palin.
Cant be dumber
ido, post a link to the video, if there is one. If Rush or Glenn said it in a show it must be gospel.
This is why I would never donate money to the ACLU--
The ACLU is always in support of the "bad guys", and their "rights".
I love drones!
Nonsense.
Drones save lives. They save the lives of American soldiers, who otherwise would have to fight a far more risky ground war.
They save the lives of civilians on the ground--there would be far more civilian deaths in an all out ground war.
PS: I wonder how you would feel if your family members and friends were victims of an Islamic terrorist attack--would you be such a bleeding heart liberal?
God bless drones!
Good thing the ACLU wasn't around in the days of the Manhattan project. What part of 'secret' is so hard to understand?
In a truly free society.. the "secrets" a govt. keeps from it's citizens should be very, very limited.
What part of "free society" is so hard to understand???
K1200
You are right, the secrets should be limited to anything related to National defense and agency's like the CDC, homeland security. Basically every thing that could impact our military or economic security should remain secret subject to the various departments discretion.
Actually they did not respond one way or another to the fishing expedition apparently they did not ask for specific documents just generalizations. Seems they knew that approach would void them getting any so they could go this route. Still does not mean they will just a small victory that establishes a fact they know some do exist.
Absolutely JonnyOTS. Of course, Al Queda conducts intelligence gathering as does every other terrorist organization. So the US government knows everything, Al Queda knows 90% of it and the people, who pay for the military and the CIA know squat. The "secrets" allow you to live in your delusional world where the government can keep you safe and no one from the government would ever do anything illegal, unconstitutional or against your best interests. And that, Johnny, is exactly what the government wants, the people to be stupid, compliant, uninterested, uninformed, uncaring and monumentally naive.
Since when has the CIA ever cared about anything the courts had to say?
I don't get it, you can just Google a map of drone strikes. Has the ACLU ever heard of Google?
Have mom read this to you,.. and then explain it...
Good luck !!!
""Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who handles the case, called Friday's decision an important ruling.
“It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIA's interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the program's scope and legal basis. It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them," he said.""
Maybe Jameel Jaffer is the guy that needs to look into the allegations being made about Sandy Hook like in this youtube video---PoW8sm5Jv3w
K1200
Maybe your mom should explain logic to you.
We only know what the CIA wants us to know, which is what they have done. The CIA is not required to confirm or deny anything with the exception of joint committees of congress. Any further release of information is not in the best interest of our country.
From this ruling the CIA can say they have documents but they don't have to reveal what they contain.
NYU and Stanford Law Schools say we are committing a war crime that is considered a terrorist act by our own government — double tap.
What is double tap? It’s when you blow up someone, and when you see first responders and family coming to help, you blow them up too.
You Libs wanted to hold George Bush ACCOUNTABLE, why not OBAMA???
Those of you who oppose the ACLU are simply ignorant of what it stands and fights for: You, the people. Before you denagrate such a patriotic organization find out what it has done over the years to safeguard and improve the rights of the American people. You certainly may be surprised to discover that the ACLU has already fought and won a cause(s) that sits well with you or advocated legal battle on many issues close to your own way of thinking.
They started out that way, but have since merely become an arm of the liberals and communists in this country, fighting to remove the rights of law-abiding citizens over stupid stuff like Christmas and the like.
The ACLU and other leftist are killing this nations fabric of nation. Cannot offer prayer in school, must allow killing own developed babies, cannot celebrate Christmas no ten commandments and many others.
The ACLU is the only organization that believes in the Constitution and does what it can to preserve those rights. All you RWNJ's that want to control my life can be damned!!
ACLU is synonymous with 'fully extended arm pointed out the driver's side window'.
ACLU needs to investigate Sandy Hook
It is at times like that I am quite proud to be a member of the ACLU. I have for the past twenty years, and I ask others that they join the ACLU in defending our civil liberties.
@Tammy, Please name once when the ACLU have ever limited your right to practice your religion as you see fit?
ACLUfightsforchristians.com
Just another bunch of lawyers making money. We have so many of them we have to find work for them.
They arn't much better than the naacp. they go in and where there isn't any trouble, they start it up. they do some good but the problems they cause overshadow it.
Like every thing else it was started with good intentions and went left from there.
The ACLU's sole purpose is to defend the constitution. Questioning drone strikes against American citizens is a valid one. The right is only concerned with the constitution when it concerns guns. When it prohibits them from basing laws on Christian values or protects minorities they change directions.
Larry, you are a liar! I do question drone strikes against American citizens. I am a conservative. I believe in the second amendment. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in racial equality and a wide array of other things. Probably some of the same things you believe in and support. Why do you have have to make this a right and left issue. One thing for sure, we will not always see eye to eye but because we may disagree doesn't mean I don't fully support the Constitution. In my opinion Obama has thumbed his nose at the Constitution more than anyone I can recall. I am sure Bush, Clinton, Carter and many other Presidents have at one time or another circumvented the constitution but to say the right only cares about the Constitution when it concerns guns is an outright lie.
Although the ACLU has been viewed as a Liberal organization, they have focused on individual Constitutional rights. Many seem to see these issues as Liberal issue and issues of the Left. Although the Left is behind these type issues far more than the Right. Don't be surprised if this doesn't change just a bit.
Take the ACLU's positions on gun rights. In light of recent Supreme Court rulings, the ACLU is rethinking its prior position and now recognizes the potential for personal civil rights because of it. Personally, I applaud their recognition that their previous position is no longer applicable. I am not sure you will see them quickly jumping on this issue, but I do anticipate that they will in the future be behind cases regarding 2nd Amendment rights as we now know them to be Constitutionally. I have little doubt that they have many core people who will struggle with this, but in the end I believe you will see them taking some positions many would not have anticipated. If the NRA is smart, they will get some of their legal team approaching the ACLU.
Time will tell, but I found this recent statement by the ACLU interesting. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
bibol said "The ACLU and other leftist are killing this nations fabric of nation. Cannot offer prayer in school, must allow killing own developed babies, cannot celebrate Christmas no ten commandments and many others."
Prayer in school, celebrating Christmas and the 10 commandments are religious beliefs. More specifically, Christian. Nobody is saying a student cannot take a moment in school to pray to whatever diety they choose, the school just cannot insist that students do so. The founders included freedom of religion and seperation of church and state for very good reasons. You're still free to celebrate Christmas or not and can adhere or ignore the 10 commandments at your own discretion. As for "killing own developed babies," the ACLU is fighting to defend the FREEDOM of CHOICE to either have a abortion or not, as opposed to the government legally binding a woman to have a baby she does not want. They also fight to defend the freedom for you to disagree with me. Read a history book. The colonists that came to the new world gave up everything they knew and risked their lives to escape the tyranny and oppression that you apparently are so fond of. When the tyrants, oppressors and their minions followed them accross the ocean, the colonists took up arms and kicked their sorry hides back to Europe and created their own nation. There are countless men and women that sacrificed everything, including their very lives, to create and defend this nation and you'll never find 99% of their names in a history book. I honor their courage and think it's foolish to so easily set aside what they fought so hard to accomplish.
See Larry that is where you are wrong. You always let your political views get involved in every discussion. I can say similar things about the left. and you. It just seems to siut you fine that you can just disregard a major part of the Declaration of Independence: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It suits libs just fine that they can take a life because they claim a fetus/baby is not alive till it takes a breath. To them the baby is like a splinter that needs to be removed. But if that lib wanted the baby and someone did something that killed as in assault then they would call it murder. Look also at gun control an how many libs would rather do away with citizens owning guns or they try to take the 2nd admendment out of context.
So how would you feel if the ACLU went after your messiah, as much of this drone policy is his doing?
Bdubs The founders had nothing to do with the FREEDOM of CHOICE, the FREEDOM of CHOICE Act was sign in 1964. Terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. This and when a women is raped should be the only time abortion should be allowed. As I said above, boy how your feelings would change about a fetus being alive if I terminated your baby/fetus that you wanted.
Bibol, The reason prayer in school was stopped is because only christian prayer was protected, and according to the Constitution that is illegal, since the First Amendment doesn't permit the establishment of religion. If Christian children have the right to pray in school, so do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or any other.
Fishman, the examples that you cited are the exact same as I have supported as long as I can remember. The people I disagree with are the ones that try to deny a woman the opportunity to end a pregnancy caused by rape. I have even seen some that would deny if the mother's life is in peril. I have always been against a woman ever using abortion as a form of birth control. I remember before Roe v Wade, when a woman would be found bled out in a seedy motel after a botched abortion, and never want to see that again.
As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, guns have been registered for decades and nobody has ever came to get them. Nobody is trying to now either. I have been a gun owner and have my reasons that I don't own one now. I have nothing against a responsible homeowner having a gun, but we really need to make them harder for people to get a hold of that have mental health, and severe anger issues.
John Mental health is an issue but it is also an issue all it's own. The acceptance of giving a child SSRI and similar drugs is crazy and needs to srop. Almost all of these drugs have never been approved for use on a child but yet they are prescribed in amazing numbers. I have to disagree with your statement about nobody wants to take my/our guns, Feinstein and others have stated on several occasions about total gun restriction. She said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it."
Feinstein also thinks it's ok current and former LEO and government officals to own "assault weapons". Well we can see how so many of the police act and there are many of them that should not be on the force never mind owning any gun. I do also believe Shumer has stated wanted a total ban on all guns but don't have time to look for the quote. There are plenty more out there that would love to strip our 2nd admendment away. In fact many people are not even aware why we have it and anyone bring up why we need a certain gun for hunting proves it.
You are also wrong in that nobody has ever come to get the guns either. They did it in New Orleans and did it in New York City after WWII. They had the vets and others register their guns and then came an took the ones not turned in.
It's all about Obama's promise to make our government more transparant.
Limit the drone assassinations and anti terror attacks to overseas countries. Never use drones on American Citizens!
If a US citizen is a proven threat to our National Security, then they are no different than the murderers who attacked us on 9/11. I say, by any means possible, take their a_s_s_e_s out!!
By your post I can deduce that you not only condone but advocate the government's murdering US citizens without benefit of a trial by jury.
I hope that you are alone in the urging of out and out murder by government assassins.
I agree but also believe the government needs to be open about what criteria it uses to kill them. Do you really want to trust the government having the ability to assassinate other Americans with no explanation of why they needed to do so. I don't trust them that much. They need to be open about when and why they need to do this.
Kinda like We The People should have all had a say (vote) in the "presidential decree" about gun bans eh?
Wake Up People!!!
Before people jump on this as an Obama policy, I'll just remind you what government official was the first to officially acknowledge the existence of the drone attacks? Why was time and time again, information leaked on virtually everyone of these attacks?
I am fine with the President's position on the use of drones as we know it. As far as what may secretly be considered as legal based on some language in the secret portions of the Patriot Act. We don't really know. I am reasonably certain that some in government hold the position that these kind of strikes are not any of the public's business. And I also suspect there are others, maybe in very high places, who think that some legal system providing oversight is also appropriate.
The fact is that secret aspects of the Patriot Act won't be reformed unless Congress does it. Now the President could refuse to sign a re-issue of the act, but that would probably go much farther than he is willing to give up. I believe that some aspects, with proper legal oversight and things like warrants and other authorizing instruments, are still necessary and useful. I doubt that the outcome of this case will become an "open book" on all such activities, but it may at least bring to light some Unconstitutional aspects of current law. That would be a good thing even if it has no impact of how the law is currently being employed. But I think the really good question is just how could it be legally applied if an administration want to? We don't know that.
Things are not always what they seem and in fact what seems obvious is often not completely representative of reality. The conclusions that many are drawing about this may in fact be completely off base.
It has been a long time coming, but we may be on the verge of fixing some injustices that have been "legalized" through the Patriot Act. Another related issue about National Security Letters is coming to a head too.
I have no problem with National Security issues being secret when they have no direct impact on US citizens. We all do not need to know the details of every secret weapon, their very existence, or the defensive strategies surrounding them. However, we should have at least a theoretical idea of under what type situations they might be deployed, particularly if it relates to US citizens on our shores. In theory, the Constitution is there to protect our citizens and it would be reasonable to assume those rights would protect us. But there is ample evidence to suggest that the rights of citizens have been infringed upon under the guise of National Security. Maybe it is "acceptable" under certain extreme circumstances. However, if such infringements become routine, we have crossed a line where they can not be justified.
I am afraid that we have seen frequent infringements of rights over the last decade or so and attempts to justify them through some legal means have been used. The trouble is that laws we don't know about, could very well be Unconstitutional. It makes it extremely difficult to challenge. I believe that most of us are willing to accept a very rare exception when it might be time critical and no other way seems possible. But where is the line that we can't cross. Seems to me it is a judgement call related to the specific circumstances. A danger exists if secret laws are used a justification. It seems like that is some pre-emptive attempt to erase any line that might be drawn at some future date.
I don't condone the use of drones to target citizens in the US, but there are many uses they would be ideal for. Surveillance in mountainous or forested areas. They would be much more effective and cost efficient than any other means for monitoring miles of pipeline across vast stretches of rural America. Also, there are thousands of out of the way private landing strips dotted all over the southwest. These were built, or rather bulldozed in the desert to service out of the way mining operations and are invisible until you're right on top of them. They would be impossible to keep track of using conventional methods.
TinyP - The difficulty with the suggested use of drones to kill US citizens on US soil is one of due process. The government wants to treat people possibly engaged in politically motivated crimes differently than they treat people possibly engaged in "normal" greed related crimes.
Let's say we have two people, one of whom, let's say Bob, hates the government of the US and intends to blow up a shopping mall to vent his anger at the government. The other, let's call him Steve, wants money and so intends to blow up the same mall to create a diversion so that he can steal the money from the mall's safe. In the case of Steve, the government would gather evidence of Steve's planned crime, then arrest him, charge him with a crime, have a trial, and, if Steve is convicted, send him to jail. For Bob's action, the government would send a drone over his house in the middle of the night, without convincing evidence, without charge, without trial, without the due process of law guaranteed in the Constitution and blow up his house, killing him and anyone else who happens to be there.
That's the problem. The government doesn't want to have to PROVE anything and they do not want to be accountable to the people in making the unilateral, unconstitutional decision to have some video game playing drone jockey kill people.
quit bitchin y'all voted for this now live with it
you know its funny. you can ask anywhere and no one admits voting for obama (other than blacks) they may back him up in blogs but no one will admit they voted for the jerk of all time in person.
mctroll, I voted for him, twice, but I never voted for shrub.
John Bryant.
Ahh, the famous response of the left, name calling.
When you have nothing to say but have to make noise you call names.
the first and last parts of your limited response. I guess you think that makes you look cool.
OK, so you admit you voted for the individual that is trashing our country, not once but twice.
so, are you asking for absolution or admitting a deviant IQ.
As I said in my post. there are a lot of you that will support this law breaking, freedom stealing, vacation taking king want to be but no one that will come out in person and admit that he voted for them. And the blacks I have asked. the most prevalent response I have gotten was "He's black, I voted for him cuz he is black" this followed by "I voted for him because he is gonna give me free--------(fill in the blank with whatever you want, I have heard them all).
Paranoid much?
There is NO US laws clearly state that a US president can order the killing of an American oversea without due process.THIS IS 1ST DEGREE MURDER IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY?????????????????
Obama is abusing some vague words in the Patriot/ War Power... Acts and US laws usually do not cover foreign territories to commit murder.
I do want the documents that he/his representative ordering the execution of US citizens without due process making public so their families can sue him in a court of law. May be a grand jury can convict him ??? Obama will get his due process that he had denied many other US citizens.
And do you call what the Taliban did to New York on 9/11 1st Degree Murder? Please. These people are using suicide bombers, vehicles, and surface to air missiles on our Soldiers, and you are pissed off that the US is retaliating by using drones on them. What hypocrites. Protect the enemy but screw our American Soldiers. I guess we see whose side you are on, and it isn't the US.
obama's policy is that his drones are ordered to murder SUSPECTED terrorists that are US citizens even if that includes the violation of an Ally's sovereign air space.
I find that to be disturbing on many levels.
Nugent, Maybe so, but if an American is training in an Al Qaeda camp, and has plans to kill Americans, possibly back on American soil, then he's no better than the terrorists he trains with.
There was also no law permitting an administration to falsify information given to the family of a service member killed in a war zone.
John Bryant,
The US Military has admitted in using an armed drone to kill a US Marine & Navy medic...
Remember the cruise missiles that POTUS Clinton launched???
BTY - He launched more cruise missiles than any former US President...
Now do you remember the numbers of Misses and deaths caused by them???
Here is just one:
Aug 1998 - Seventy cruise missiles were launched. The targets were identified by Pentagon officials as an extensive terrorism training complex in Afghanistan, 94 miles south of Kabul, and a factory for the building blocks of chemical weapons near Khartoum, the Sudan.
The Al-Shifa (الشفاء, Arabic for "healing") pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum North, Sudan, was constructed between 1992 and 1996 with components imported from the United States, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, India, and Thailand.
The industrial complex was composed of around four buildings. It was the largest pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum and employed over 300 workers, producing medicine both for human and veterinary use. The factory was used primarily for the manufacture of anti-malaria medicines and veterinary products.
It killed one employee and wounding eleven. Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off.[1][2]
U.S. OKs payout for Sudan bombing 'mistake'
The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman who said the bombing last year of his pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a "mistake" based on faulty intelligence data.
The administration also agreed to release $24 million in assets that the businessman, Saleh Idris, had deposited in U.S. banks... see article - TPDL 2000-Aug-1, from the Associated Press 2000-Jul-31
The government's secrets doctrine of the court was founded on a government lie, and flowed out of an airplane crash in the early 1950s that claimed the lives of some civilian scientist on board. When sued, the government simply lied and said they did not have to answer the case because it would reveal government secrets about the plane and its mission. The court bought it. 50 years later the records of the crash are released and the cause of the crash was simple negligence in maintenance of the engine and had nothing to do with the mission or any other secret thing.
The point being, the fox always hides what it is doing in the hen house!
The people being killed know all about the drone strikes. The intelligence services of all countries know about the drone strikes. The only ones in the dark are the American people. Do not tell them, their might a hue and cry and our indiscriminate killing might get shut down or we might get embarrassed.
All of you yelling about national security surprise me. Why are we over there anyway? At the rate we are killing the Al Queda leadership, how could there be any left. This was a question I often pondered and raised as long ago as the Kennedy period of the Viet Nam war.
In 1969-1971 It was surprising to how you needed a security clearance to read a article in Time Magazine, the Nation, the New York Times or other magazines and newspapers on base. If just walked across the highway to the store you just buy the magazine.
The emphasis on security and secrecy is the hall mark of tyrant, and the enemy of our representative democracy.
In my view, freedom for the average citizen has ceased to exist.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
1st, I'm not sure if you're aware, but when Kennedy was alive, our personnel in Vietnam were military advisors, and Kennedy was moving to bring them home at the time of his death. Our military weren't totally engaged until the Gulf of Tonkin, which turned out to be a fabrication of the Johnson administration. Our first advisors were sent over to assist the French when their rubber plantations were coming under attack during the mid to late 50s.
More recently, after 9/11, the Bush White House nullified large chunks of our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, and free speech zones. I'm sure there are more that I'm not privy to
The CIA wanted to see what they could get away with.
CIA = Crimminals In Action.
Read Legacy of Ashes if you think that I am making this up.
For what purpose does the ALCU "need to know" or "want to know" when, where, and whom the Generals are targeting to strike with their drones? During WW II the saying was "loose lips sinks ships." Needing to know and wanting to know are not "freedoms" or "rights" that need to be protected or enforced in the time of war.
cia is private army of president.
yeah, so is homeland security.
OK, I'm no fan of the ACLU as they stick their noses in places where they are not needed or wanted way too many times but it is great that they got the courts to tell the CIA that they will have to own up to things and stop playing (?) stupid. just a thought though. this is about strikes in other countries right? Why does the ACLU even have a dog in this fight. Now if it was about strikes in the USA I could see it. Maybe they should retarget this to Obama, The DPJ and Homeland security.
I myself would like to know why HLS needed 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo (to their already huge pile), Even more fully automatic weapons and all the fuklly armored mine resistent personel carriers when all they do is is work inside the continetal US. Who they plan on using that on anyway?
sorry for the spelling error, that should have been FULLY armored.
mctrog
I agree with a lot of the cases the ACLU has fought for all US citizens.
This is not just about drone strikes but, planned murders of US citizens (and murdering INNOCENT FOREIGN NATIONALS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY in the process[euphemism = collateral damage]) that are only SUSPECTED of being terrorists, in violation of Allied country's airspace and against their objections.
If obama's murdering US citizens in other countries, what is to stop him from doing the same on US soil? The law? We already know that he believes he is above the law.
since they started acting on U.S. soil that is forbidden to the Criminals in action
That position, the court said, has been completely undercut by public statements about the drone program made by President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan
looks like Obama and friends might have shot themselves in the foot again.
but from looking at the article evn if the ACLU wins they probably won't get anything.
It might make obama and his buddies look bad. Kinda like when Obama released the news on seal team 6.
For what it is worth the courts of our country hold no water on areas outside of the United States. We are governored by a system that ends it rules of law at our borders. If the CIA is only working outside of our borders then the courts at any level has no dog in the fight. The ACLU can pack sand unless they plan on trying to be a world wide entity.
If so they can leave us here and that makes my day....I'll even help them pack.
works for me, I'll lend a hand also.
so when US citizens leave the country our government agencies can do whatever they want to us? I don't think so bozo
Scary thought wondering if one day I am going to get blasted off my patio during a family cookout because I belong to the wrong party. More scary, or confusing is why Obamacare needs continual information about my finances and savings for a free medical system that is supposed to provide the same care to everyone. And why does the annual 60 page Obamacare questionaire want to know if I belong to the moose club, or who I attended prom with 40 years ago and for me to describe in detail my loose bloody stool problem and hand over the info to a non high school graduate making $8 an hour laughing about my Obamacare application while she is chatting with a friend and tweeting on her cell phone while processing all my information so she can determine if and when I qualify to see a doctor in 12 months..... thats scary.
welcome to the OBAMAnation.
Piss on the judge and piss on the ACLU scumbags; the use of drones should be solely in the jurisdiction of the CIA without idiot civilian socialist bastards having any say in the matter.
yeah bsure til they target you for speaking your mind or having an opinion.
what an infintial thing to say.
I would prefer the cia stay off home soil like they should.
What right does the ACLU has to want secret and confidential documents? What right I say? Did they demand documents from 9/11? Or the attacks conducted by our Soldiers? Perhaps they want to know what kind of weapons our Soldiers are using? This is ridiculous. The US has the right to use whatever necessary in order to protect its Soldiers. Drones have saved more lives than having our Soldiers go in and do the mission. You people can go suck a duck!!
What a waste of time. Intelligence industry does not divulge, right or wrong be damnnnned. How ya' gunna' prove it anyways?
I don’t care to much of seeing the Drone files the CIA has and I don’t want to fight the government on their Drone activity. People are all shook up about drones and there is not much to worry about. They will not be killing anyone on American soil for a good 10 years I’d bet. I could see them using them for Mexico and the drug trade. That might cause some deaths. Don’t people like seeing the dead al-Qaeda members in the news, we can’t get that without drones. I think we will end up at the same place we are headed, with or without all the talks about drones. Our law enforcement and citizens will be using drones in the future. There are already colleges classes and schooling to learn how to use a drone and it will become big business I’d bet. No one is going to stop drones, it is already unstoppable. I’d like no guns on them myself, people will die if they do and we are not short handed on people to carry guns and perform the acts themselves. I wonder what America will look like in 10 years with drones. It will be fun to see and not a conversation that is stupid and goes no where. Drones will be all over the place and police will use them and so will normal people who are working. We have to go with the future.
Regardless of which party is in power we need the judiciary to keep their attempts to violate our freedoms in check.
I want the ACLU to take on the government over the Second Amendment rights.Those rights not only apply to whites in suburbs or Republicans but all people the right to bear arms to protect themselves since the police cannot be everywhere all the time. The ACLU doesn't have a problem suing for the separation of church and State. Such suits are limited to religion vs. atheists while the Second Amendment covers all citizens and is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Obama is trying his best to destroy the Constitution.
Sorry Wade you're an idiot. There have always been limits to the types of weapons a citizen can have. You can't have a nuke, bazooka, grenade, machine gun etc. etc. Limiting the size of clips or certain rifles doesn't infringe your right to own guns. The second amendment does not guarantee you the right to posses any weapon you want.
Nice name calling
Screw you Larry; I'm making my own drone!
Larry, actually you "can" get a machine gun. it takes a class three license to do it, cost about $500.00 for a license for one specific weapon. not any one of that type but one and only one as per the serial number. then comes the cost of buying said weapon. as for the rest, I'm pretty sure there isn't a lot of call for people in this country wanting to buy nukes. Stop trying to grandstand.
the weapons on the to be baned list that they are trying to push are nothing but semi automatic weapons that Polisie thinks looks scary to her. Yeah, the look like military weapons but they are not. they are semi autos that aren't any different than a ruger 10/22 (.22 caliber rifle).
They can hold a lot of rounds but you still get 1 round per trigger pull.
I would agree that no one that I know really needs to be able to buy a Barret .50 sniper rifle or equivalent, I'll give her that one but at over $10.00 a round (before the ammo buy up by obama's admin) there probably would be a big use of them for anything other than sniping and you can do that with a .17 hmr and a good scope. it won't penetrate armor plating but it will kill you just as dead.
As for clip size. I myself have 40 round mags for my ak-47 and my SKS but I could live with 10 rounds but that is just my personal feelings. I have the option to use what I want. That is a freedom that I choose to support. you can give your up if you want but a freedom lost will not be regained.