Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wow - They Don't Even Try to Hide it Anymore

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 17, 2012, 8:46 a.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The government telling the judicial branch how to run its show - this is jacked up -

"U.S.: Toss lawsuit over al-Awlaki’s death

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration urged a federal court Friday to dismiss a damage lawsuit over the drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen last year, including an al-Qaida cleric.

In a court filing, the Justice Department said the issue is best handled by the government's political branches, not the judiciary.

U.S.-born al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, an al-Qaida propagandist, were killed in a drone strike in September 2011. Al-Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman, was killed the following month.

The lawsuit filed by relatives of the three charged that senior CIA and military officials violated the Constitution and international law when they authorized strikes by the unmanned drones. It named as defendants Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then-CIA Director David Petraeus and two commanders in the military's Special Operations forces.

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

"Courts repeatedly have recognized that the political branches, with few exceptions, have both the responsibility for — and the oversight of — the defense of the nation and the conduct of armed conflict abroad," the Justice Department said. "The judiciary rarely interferes in such arenas. In this case, plaintiffs ask this court to take the extraordinary step of substituting its own judgment for that of the executive."

The government said the lawsuit is "rife with separation-of-powers, national defense, military, intelligence and diplomatic concerns. Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate here, where plaintiffs seek non-statutory damages from the personal resources of some of the highest officials in the U.S."

The lawsuit was filed in July by Nasser al-Awlaki — Anwar's father and Abdulrahman's grandfather — and by Sarah Khan, Khan's mother. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The suit claimed that none of those killed posed a concrete, specific and imminent threat of serious physical injury; that "means short of lethal force" were available; and that the government did not take "all feasible measures to protect bystanders."

"Plaintiffs thus invite this court to determine whether an individual in Yemen whom the executive branch had already declared a leader of an organized armed enemy group, and a foreign operative of that group, posed a sufficient threat to the United States and its citizens to warrant the alleged use of missile strikes abroad within the context of an armed conflict and the executive's national self-defense mission," the Justice Department responded. The government said that situation was rife with political questions.

"A judicial finding that the alleged strikes were illegal would show a lack of deference regarding policy choices made by the political branches," the government said. "It would take the judiciary well beyond its traditional role and would thrust it into the realm of policymaking."

At the time of the September 2011 drone attack, President Barack Obama had declared al-Awlaki's killing a "major blow" to al-Qaida's most dangerous affiliate and had called him "the leader of external operations for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula." "

continued:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/12/ap-al-awlaki-lawsuit-should-be-tossed-121412/

86 Comments

86 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i don't know what is more fucked up the fact that this is reality in america or i am the first one to comment on this post in 21 hours. don't you people get it. the legislative branch is way beyond the confines of checks and balances. this is fucking insane. they can kill whoever they want and then say "A judicial finding that the alleged strikes were illegal would show a lack of deference regarding policy choices made by the political branches," the government said. all bow to the motherfucking kings as if libor, hsbc, and the looting of hostess employees pensions was not enough to tell you to know your place serf.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Yeah i couldn't believe that when i read it.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"In the motion to dismiss, Justice Department lawyers argue that the necessity for the strikes and the viability of any alternatives is a question beyond the proper purview of the courts." - Politico

Just send Stallone in and call this Judge Dredd. "I AM THE LAW"

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

we are reaching a level of insanity that is not even scientifically possible.

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

with the obama administration, it is.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

oh please like the romney administration would be better. suck an egg.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you'll never know, will you?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i do know. i know he was a piece of shit. hey obama is a piece of shit to. but lets not act like they are not pieces of shit. that is ridiculous.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

obama = fast and furious, benghazi murders, solyndra and all the " green energy" money laundering. romney=?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

get back to me when you actually have something.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

i never knew you were an ostrich.

[-] 3 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i am not. fast and furious, benghazi, solyndra this shit is all partisan nonsense. how about the real crimes he has committed. you know like the extra judicial killings of us citizens. no we won't talk about that cause we support that. what about charging those chumps from the bush administration for lying to us about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. no those are your guys. huh, or what about the ineffectual behavior of regulating agencies and their capture by the very corporations and financial institutions they are supposed to regulate? no! you want to get rid of all regulations. ohhhh i c. nevermind this conversation is going nowhere.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

fast furous is gun running on the part of the current adminstration, . solyndra et al is money laundering on the part of the current administration. benghazi , 4 murdered us citizens , including a us ambassador, who asked for help and were denied by the current adminstration.bush is gone get over it and deal with the current adminstration.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

fast and furious? benghazi? solyndra? you sound ridiculous. i don't support these crooks but you sound like a right wing parrot. polly wanna cracker? like i said you won't even address real shit. nope just this phony baloney crap. get real. grow up. stop thinking like an 8th grader. the adults will be waiting. it's on you when you leave the kiddie table.

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

if your tuning out nonsense then you wont be listening to anything the obama administrtion has to say. smart move.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i don't listen to the new democrat cocksuckers or the neo-cons. they are all a den of vipers.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The election is over. Your guy got his sorry vulture capitalist ass beat like an old salvation army drum.

It's over! The extremist tea parties lost seats and failed in all their witchhunt investigations of Pres Obama.

Get over it! Move on. You're just being a pathetic wacko now.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the case is not closed , but your mind is.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

sorry i tend to tune out nonsense.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you didnt answer the question, stevens requested help, why did the white house tell general ham and others to stand down? the libyan guards that were there to protect stevens and the others were on stike and not there to do thier job. why was a call for help turned down by the US govt?

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i have seen no evidence pointing to wrong doing and neither did the investigation report released today. case closed.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

he also aked for help. why was he turned down?

[-] 3 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

shit happens in a war zone. to act surprised and whine cause shit happened. well that is just childish and right up conservatives ally.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

so, the murder of the US ambassador and 3 others isnt worth being looked into? they asked for help, general ham ( african commander ) ws going to help them , told to stand down by the US and ws taken out of service.. stevens was raped, tortured and murdered. the white house was watching the attack in real time. susan rice was sent on all the sunday news programs to blame it on a video. for weeks hillary and obama kept saying it was because of a video. and you think its nothing.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

pretty much. stevens new the risks. to suggest we wouldn't help one of our own is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Do you understand the meaning of trumped up distracting bullshit?

Let me ask you this.

Are you aware of the level of tyranny recently demonstrated in the state of Michigan?

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

all that i cited is real and if a republican were president the press would be going after it on a daily basis. what occurred in michigan ws done by elected reps. it was the unions that didnt like the results of the process because it denied them the money that would have come from mandatory dues. union members are still free to contribute to their unions. it also took away mandatory union membership in order to work. the people are still free to join a union. they have a choice.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Fast and furiously looking for some cooked-up scandel to distract from solving the nation's problems? You guys want another Whitewater, or Monika Lewinski thing you can get your pets in the MSM to trumpet to the skyies for a couple of years so nobody notices the hand you have in their pockets?

Sorry, been there, done that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You did not answer the question.

Why, oh why, do they have so many problems answering the simplest of questions.

That was a bill written by ALEC for the specific purpose of crushing unions.

NOTHING else.

They admitted it on tape, but your "source" omitted that IMPORTANT detail.........You should wonder why, but you don't.

So you just posted more bullshit.

Plus that's hardly the only evidence of tyranny, just the crap you cribbed from a source you refuse to name, because you are ashamed of it.

It's OK to be ashamed, but you should also come clean, it can be refreshing.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you are the one ( and well trained ) that never responds to the questions, changes the topic. ows struck gold in you. you ought to be part of the obama administration,.........maybe you are.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Actually I do answer many questions.

When I refuse it's because it was demanded after their own refusal.

Kinda like you do.

Wanna talk about how badly Reagan's treason fucked up our country and in a way created the situation that made all these "crazy" mass murders inevitable?

Or do your decidedly "right wing sources" refuse that reality too?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

FLAKESnews and Limbaugh did that decades ago.

Try and keep up. You're becoming an anachronism.

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

really? do you watch or listen to them? i dont.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Rarely does anyone admit to it.

Strange how they can still parrot what they say.

You've just demonstrated that phenomena very well.....thanks.....:)

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

only you are capable of critical thinking? i said i dont watch or listen . to what you named. i dont, and have no need to lie about it. i read websites that post news articles.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What is it about your post that you consider "critical thinking"?

The stuff you cribbed from Alex Jones?

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

who?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You.

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

i read lucianne ( stories from around the world are posted ) and canada free press

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That explains everything, especially your inaccuracies..

You should be posting at blaze.com, not here.

I would also expect you to be highly anti-union.

Am I correct?

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the readrs of lucianne post stoires from around the world. whats wrong with that. the stories come from all papers no matter what their political leanings are. YOU asked me about michigan,........... i answered about what went on in MICHIGAN regarding " right to work" and mandatory deductions of unions dues.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

She's an agent with a blog, fer Christ's sake. Whoop.

Michigan?

Number one: You lied about the ONLY thing you knew happened.

You shouldn't lie. It's bad for the psyche.

Number two: That Fucked up legislation is but one of many. a many that Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Snyder is a tyrant.

We're done here now, because you're now going to look stuff up on google, to pretend you knew stuff you didn't have the foggiest idea about.

In closing, I would say find better sources, these are really no better than prisonplanet.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

what does my reading stories from around the world explain? what inaccuracies? regarding unions, i believe that joining should be a choice made by the employee, not the employer.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sources matter. Yours are bad. very, very bad.

Find others.

You have no idea what unions do.

None whatsoever.

You should know the meaning of the word scab.

If a union built the contract, all employees should pay for it.

Or go down the street to another corporation and negotiate their own contract.

It IS union busting ........Admitted.........plain and simple.

For you to deny that, and pretend it's something else, makes you a victim of all kinds of lies and liars, and very much in danger of being called a flat out liar..

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

my name is not alex jones.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Coulda' fooled me.

So where do you come by your "information", so untouched by truth?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Huh, Alex Jones has now joined discussion on this forum? Well, that'll liven things up! He's going by the name of "town"?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Might as well be...........:)

He's just another distraction.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

i read sites that have news stories by various writers .

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Your info is highly inaccurate.

So what sites specifically do you crib from?

If, of course, you are not ashamed to admit what they are.

You seem rather abashed by that prospect.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the deadliest school attack was in 1927 at the bath school in michigan . 38 kids killed, 7 adults. dynamite was used. the murderer ( kehoe) was angry about losing an election for town clerk the previous year. a larger mass murder ws done at waco by the US govt. 74 men, women and children ( 12 under 5yrs old). the US govt used guns, tanks and flame throwers. janet reno ( atty general under clinton ) was in charge of this.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The wackos in Waco should have given up instead of shooting at the authorities.

That'll learn 'em!

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

how many innocent people were killed?

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

so, its their fault that the govt murdered them? what exactly did the children there do that forced the govt to murder them?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The children were innocent. The parents were guilty of negligence, and gross irresponsibility. They should have submitted to govt requests to enter. They killed their children.

That's what makes them wackos!

Get it?

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"they" did not murder their children the govt did.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They wacko parents negligence created the danger. THEY are responsible for their childrens deaths.

That'll learn 'em.

We are all taught to listen to the police. Why didn't they?

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the clinton govt, under the direction of janet reno murder the children.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Put your partisan non sense aside. Why didn't theparents allow authorities in?

I gotta ifthe police come. Why are they about the law.

Did they think they could stop the peoples govt.? That's what makes 'em wackos.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So it is you that loves this stuff and lends it credence by studying it, as though you know anything at all about conditions and circumstances of those times.

You don't even know the circumstances of these times.

Waco? Mistakes were made, but it was a new circumstance for law enforcement. They should have never had children involved in what they were doing anyway.

Reagan killed innocent, unsuspecting Americans. .

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"studying it"? no, just posting it. a man blew up a school murdering 38 kids and 7 adults. all because the guy didnt get elected. it doesnt fit the msm screaming over gun control. a " new circumstance" ? the US govt murdered 74 citizens at waco.was that the only way to deal with the situtaion?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yeah, you studied it. just like you think you studied Waco.

Those folks shouldn't have been breaking the law with children present.

You act as though the "family" was unarmed. That's all I have to say about Waco.

Reagan killed complete innocents, without blinking an eye.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

obama does it ( murders) with drones.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Still trying to defer the truth about Reagan?

Yes, you are.

I have yet to meet a single winger that does.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

still trying to defer the truth about obama?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sorry, I asked first and you're the one playing fish out of water, so dive in.

Learn some truth. I don't comment on drones for a reason.

What's your reason for denying the truth about Reagan?

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

where did reagan kill complete innocents?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gunships in central America (rattle n hum)?

cruise missiles in middle east?

Were you alive in the '80's?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Haha, are you freakin kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Ya know, the same people WE are now killing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Lots and lots of planes falling out of the sky all over America.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

lots and lots of planes? when?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How so? Supporting weapons bans?, taxing the 1%'rs? ending wars? All over the objection of repub right wing wackos?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

So now these Republican plants are coming to the defense of Al-Quida in the hopes of getting Obama?

There simply isn't any level of craven hypocricy they won't stoop to. Not any. None.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I remember when the Bush administration was calling anti-Iraq war protesters unpatriotic. Now we have people like you accusing people of supporting Al Qaeda for wanting to abide by the laws of the land? Outrageous.

Stanford Law and the NYU School of Law released a recent study and it says the drones kill a ton of civilians.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

ALSO THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED BY THE ACLU, one of the few and great liberal institutions in this country.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

You should look into foreign policy and the wars. The troops are still in Afghanistan because of trillions of dollars in resources. "Trillions with an S." and that's from our 4 Star General and Former Director of the CIA David Petraeus

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

The lawsuit was filed by the relatives of the ones killed....not the republicans

As far as i know all the neocons have pushed for is more war during Obama's admin...saying he hasn't bombed enough or taken enough action in different parts of the world...dont' see why they would care in the slightest about this.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It was filed by the ACLU and CCR

The ACLU has filed several lawsuits regarding the illegal actions of the drone strikes.

But hey you're a republican plant if you question US foreign policy, right? LOL

THEY don't like people talking about war on the forum.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Or "unpatriotic" if the republicans are in office.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

yah I pointed that out to Gypsyking who basically accused you of defending al qaeda.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

fast and furious is a national scandal coverd up the msm. abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, ny times, all part of the govt p.r. media.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

We weren't talking about the "fast and furious" scandel cooked up by the MSM, we were taking about the hypocricy of Republicans defending Al-Quida from the executive branch of government.

If Democrats (or anyone else) had done this during the Bush administration they'd have been put of a no-fly-list, if not tried for treason.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Scahill schools MSM hacks. Worm person Chris Hayes does what he does best- a generic round up, appeasing all guests, with a cut to commerical break for a regrouping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlQHUEWYigM

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Man....watch the obama shills squirm in this clip. Great video.

"with a cut to commerical break for a regrouping"

With a cut to commercial break to not let Scahill an opportunity to call him on his BS.

[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Exactly. MSM pundits are great at wrapping it up and bringing it to a close with some grand "rebranding"....to only start the next segment about who knows what...

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Accordingly, America needs Article V. Preparatory Amendment assures that all amendments will be constitutional which Article V requires.

Or, with Preparatory Amendment there is no danger of a runaway convention.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

What do you expect when you have a president with no regard for the constitution or peoples rights. It's all about "executive orders" that he thinks gives him unlimited governmental powers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Are executive orders unlimited? If so then I guess Pres Obama does have unlimited power & should stop negotiating with those right wing wacko corp shill repubs.