Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda

Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FatDomDaddy -> Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/18/2012 4:41:03 PM)
Wonderful.... Bet this made the President's Day. "[the] American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed the lawsuit on behalf of the parents of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Now before all you on the left start your "what about _____!!! And _____ did this where, were your threads then!!!! And NeoCon, Tea Party, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Nixon, you you you, what about" stuff. I support this President having a Terrorist Kill List and I applaud him for using it. Hope he uses it again.

tazzygirl -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/18/2012 4:45:37 PM)
I have no problem with this. Khan was killed in September alongside Anwar al-Awlaki, whose son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, died in a separate drone strike a few weeks later, also in Yemen. It is unclear whom the U.S. was targeting in the attack and why al-Awlaki's son was near that location. Jaffers hopes those questions will be answered in court. Relatives say the terror suspect’s son was not affiliated with terrorism. "I never thought that one day this boy, this nice boy, will be killed by his own government for no wrong he did certainly," his grandfather, Nasseral-Awlaki, said in a video statement provided to CNN by the ACLU. Holder said the U.S. takes the death of innocent bystanders into account. "Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage," Holder said in March. The lawsuit against CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and two military officials seeks damages against the four government officials. It does not name a specific dollar amount, only saying "an amount to be determined at trial," according to the complaint. "It's not about money," Jaffers said. "The main purpose of bringing the lawsuit is to obtain a kind of accountability that can only be obtained in a federal court." This is the second lawsuit the ACLU has filed on behalf of Nasser al-Awlaki. In 2010, it filed a suit in federal court trying to prevent the targeting killing of Anwar al-Awlaki after it was made public that he was on a U.S. government "kill list." The court dismissed the case a few months later.

vincentML -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/18/2012 5:55:55 PM)
I'm good with this law suit. I would like to see if the Courts will uphold Holder with whom I agree on this count: "It does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a March speech. “Even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." Does citizenship provide immunity to an individual who openly declares war by word and deed against the Nation, or has he made himself a legitimate target? Badda Bing!

Owner59 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/18/2012 6:02:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Wonderful.... Bet this made the President's Day. "[the] American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed the lawsuit on behalf of the parents of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Now before all you on the left start your "what about _____!!! And _____ did this where, were your threads then!!!! And NeoCon, Tea Party, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Nixon, you you you, what about" stuff. I support this President having a Terrorist Kill List and I applaud him for using it. Hope he uses it again. Not sure if you got the memo Fats but half the cons here agree with this.....the really extreme loonie ones, who hate or President so much they are siding with our enemies. They post everyday. So to rich and liz and the others........we`ll keep kill`n`m and ya`ll can sue all ya`ll want to.[:D]

DarkSteven -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/18/2012 8:09:41 PM)
What a mess. They were US citizens but in harm's way in a country that we're carrying out active hostilities in. And it's unlikely they would have responded to a request for extradition for trial in the US.

Owner59 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (7/19/2012 4:32:23 AM)
Yes......unlikely, indeed.........[8D]

Politesub53 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 4:51:05 PM)
I searched for a thread on this as I wasnt sure if there had been one. I was watching Christiana Amanpour on CNN tonight and there was a section on about these particular drone strikes. While I have always supported the attack on Al Alwaki snr, his sons case is a little different. he was killed two weeks after his father and was apparently eating a meal with some other kids who also died. Surely there was some evidence and this wasnt just an attack on the boy because of who his father was.... Sadly, I have a feeling that was exactly the case, especially after hearing the grandfather talking tonight. I have been in full support of known terrorists being killed in this way but maybe this is spinning out of control.

Aylee -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 6:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I'm good with this law suit. I would like to see if the Courts will uphold Holder with whom I agree on this count: "It does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a March speech. “Even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." Does citizenship provide immunity to an individual who openly declares war by word and deed against the Nation, or has he made himself a legitimate target? Badda Bing! I thought that was a de facto if not de jure (dayum I hope I did not get those reversed) renunciation of your citizenship.

Real0ne -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 6:33:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I support this President having a Terrorist Kill List and I applaud him for using it. Hope he uses it again. yeh hitler had one too called Einsatzgruppe.

slvemike4u -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 8:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I'm good with this law suit. I would like to see if the Courts will uphold Holder with whom I agree on this count: "It does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a March speech. “Even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." Does citizenship provide immunity to an individual who openly declares war by word and deed against the Nation, or has he made himself a legitimate target? Badda Bing! I thought that was a de facto if not de jure (dayum I hope I did not get those reversed) renunciation of your citizenship. Nah,you got it right. A much better job of it than when you make pool analogies......lol Happy New Year [:D]

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 8:46:34 PM)
Keep in mind that there is far more than enough precedent for killing US citizens in combat - the quarter million or so confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. They were considered 'citizens' in that the southern states' secessions were not considered valid, and thus were still bound by US (yankee) law. There is also the well established and legally tested fact of police killing someone in a crisis situation 'without benefit of trial'. If these people can be arrested and put on trial for treason, that would be all fine and good. But since it seems doubtful, and since they pose a clear and present threat to this nation, then all bets are - rightfully - off. The ACLU means well, but like all 'purists' they sometimes don't stop to consider the implications of their actions. [sm=axe.gif]

Nosathro -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 9:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Keep in mind that there is far more than enough precedent for killing US citizens in combat - the quarter million or so confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. They were considered 'citizens' in that the southern states' secessions were not considered valid, and thus were still bound by US (yankee) law. There is also the well established and legally tested fact of police killing someone in a crisis situation 'without benefit of trial'. If these people can be arrested and put on trial for treason, that would be all fine and good. But since it seems doubtful, and since they pose a clear and present threat to this nation, then all bets are - rightfully - off. The ACLU means well, but like all 'purists' they sometimes don't stop to consider the implications of their actions. [sm=axe.gif] This killings were done by pedator drones operated by remote control. Then there is the matter of US citizenship which by right requires a trial, not by a unnamed group who makes decisions as to who lives or dies. I for one am glad the ACLU is taking this action. Anwar was a national US citizen never gave up his citizenship. There is no evidence presented that he was a member of a terrorist group. In fact he was a member of group the Pentagon picked to help with relationships between US and Arabs. However Anwar and other left the group after it was discovered it was an intelligence operation. Anwar operated a news paper in Yemen, the authorites there was looking for him to return him to the US. The Obama Administration said Anwar was involved in terrorist operations but when pressed for proof they refused.

Nosathro -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/1/2013 11:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Keep in mind that there is far more than enough precedent for killing US citizens in combat - the quarter million or so confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. They were considered 'citizens' in that the southern states' secessions were not considered valid, and thus were still bound by US (yankee) law. There is also the well established and legally tested fact of police killing someone in a crisis situation 'without benefit of trial'. If these people can be arrested and put on trial for treason, that would be all fine and good. But since it seems doubtful, and since they pose a clear and present threat to this nation, then all bets are - rightfully - off. The ACLU means well, but like all 'purists' they sometimes don't stop to consider the implications of their actions. [sm=axe.gif] A few notes of history: During World War II the US Government took US Citizens of Japanese heritage and had them relocated claiming it was possible some maybe spies etc. However a small group including US Miltary bought the land pennies on the dollar that onced belong to the US Citizens, it was prime land. During all this not one US Citizen of Italian or German was detained, in fact Neo Nazi Pro Hitler political groups were allowed to continue their activities in the US during the war. Obama himself wants to have the power to detain up to 10 years any US citizen who a unknown government group declare a "Person of Interest" believing that at some time in the future this person may commit a crime. The 10 year detention can go even more if this same unknown group believes the person still may commit a crime in the future.

meatcleaver -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 1:28:35 AM)
The problem with such extra-judicial assassinations is that they tend to kill innocent people and cause resentment and recruit many more people to the opposing cause than they kill. The USA is becoming hated in pakistan for its (often) mass murder of innocent Pakistanis through drone attacks. Israel has the same policy of extra-judicial assassinations in Gaza which often wipe out whole families. It all makes conflicts harder to solve and creates resentments that can last for generations.

Politesub53 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 3:13:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking If these people can be arrested and put on trial for treason, that would be all fine and good. But since it seems doubtful, and since they pose a clear and present threat to this nation, then all bets are - rightfully - off. The ACLU means well, but like all 'purists' they sometimes don't stop to consider the implications of their actions.[/size] [sm=axe.gif] But what about the boy ? I dont see it as okay to have targeted him because of who he was. As for calling the ACLU "Purists" Many on the right have questioned these tactics as well.

Politesub53 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 3:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The problem with such extra-judicial assassinations is that they tend to kill innocent people and cause resentment and recruit many more people to the opposing cause than they kill. The USA is becoming hated in pakistan for its (often) mass murder of innocent Pakistanis through drone attacks. Israel has the same policy of extra-judicial assassinations in Gaza which often wipe out whole families. It all makes conflicts harder to solve and creates resentments that can last for generations. I get all that, despite having been in favour of known terrorists. All is not as it seems though. The DOD was duped on one occasion at least into bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan. The so called informant had ulterior motives and told the intelligence people a top level AQ/Taliban meeting was being held in the house concerned. Intel on the scene wanted to double check first but where over ruled by the CIA boss at the time. The problem was the clamour to get results overrides the safety of non combatants. It poses the question what would the US and UK react if another nation had the same policy and the bystanders were from the US/UK ? I think you are quite right about drone and bombing attacks being a recruiting tool for terrorism.

Politesub53 -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 3:23:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro A few notes of history: During World War II the US Government took US Citizens of Japanese heritage and had them relocated claiming it was possible some maybe spies etc. However a small group including US Miltary bought the land pennies on the dollar that onced belong to the US Citizens, it was prime land. During all this not one US Citizen of Italian or German was detained, in fact Neo Nazi Pro Hitler political groups were allowed to continue their activities in the US during the war. Obama himself wants to have the power to detain up to 10 years any US citizen who a unknown government group declare a "Person of Interest" believing that at some time in the future this person may commit a crime. The 10 year detention can go even more if this same unknown group believes the person still may commit a crime in the future. Any links for this ?

meatcleaver -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 4:45:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The DOD was duped on one occasion at least into bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan. The so called informant had ulterior motives and told the intelligence people a top level AQ/Taliban meeting was being held in the house concerned. Intel on the scene wanted to double check first but where over ruled by the CIA boss at the time. Well that just shows how stupid the policy is. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The problem was the clamour to get results overrides the safety of non combatants. It poses the question what would the US and UK react if another nation had the same policy and the bystanders were from the US/UK ? I think you are quite right about drone and bombing attacks being a recruiting tool for terrorism. Polite, we all know the venomous outpourings there would be if say Russia or China used missile attacks on a wedding in the US or UK by mistake to kill terrorists. Shit! We would be horrified if they used missiles on actual terrorists in our cities even if they didn't kill any innocents. We all would be thinking what type of inhuman bastards decided that was a good idea. The west suffers from cognitive dissonance.

Nosathro -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 3:45:48 PM)
Well this recent court ruling may have some impact on this: http://news.yahoo.com/ny-times-loses-bid-uncover-details-drone-strikes-213935972--finance.html

IgorsHand -> RE: Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda (1/2/2013 3:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Well this recent court ruling may have some impact on this: http://news.yahoo.com/ny-times-loses-bid-uncover-details-drone-strikes-213935972--finance.html I was reading an article where some law enforcement agencies in America have drones for surveillance. I wonder how long it will be before agencies are pushing for armed drones as a form of crime fighting.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875