Judge tosses lawsuit over drone deaths of Americans

[MindMover]

Source: Politico

Representatives of three Americans killed in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011—including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar Al-Awlaki—cannot pursue a lawsuit alleging that the killings violated their constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed a suit brought on behalf of Al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman and alleged AQAP propagandist Samir Khan. Civil liberties groups filed the litigation on behalf of family members of the dead Americans, arguing that they were unconstitutionally deprived of life without due process of law and that the Obama Administration illegally maintained a so-called "kill list" of Americans targeted for death at the hands of U.S. government operations overseas.

"The persons holding the jobs of the named Defendants must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution when they intentionally target a U.S. citizen abroad at the direction of the President and with the concurrence of Congress. They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war," Collyer wrote.

In a flight of legal nuance, Collyer rejected the Obama Administration's arguments that she lacked authority to delve into the case because it presented a "political question" not suited to the courts. But she ultimately concluded that the elder Al-Awlaki's claim should not go forward because it would require the courts to recognize a new remedy for Americans killed in U.S. government action abroad and at least three appeals courts have indicated it is inadvisable for judges to allow claims of that sort without explicit authorization from Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/04/judge-tosses-lawsuit-over-drone-deaths-of-americans-186346.html

[Thinkingabout]

1. Just goes to prove you can file suit for anything.

It should be allowed for the families from 9/11 file suit against the bin Laden family for not allowing due process.

[delrem]

3. The bin Laden family are friends of the Bush's, one of the US's first-families.

So of course there should be no lawsuits there.

The kid was 16 yrs old, not involved in a conflict, in a country that's not at war with the US, and was killed by a robot operated thousands of miles away - so even though explicitly targeted is obviously "collateral damage" and has no rights.

What a wonderful world we live in.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Also, the ones killed on 9/11 was not involved in conflicts, I am so sure this kid was not

Involved or perhaps in the future, we don't know where or what he was involved. Yes, I know the bin Laden family financed the Bush family ventures.

[delrem]

6. "perhaps in the future"???

Sorry, I don't know where you're coming from with your statements.

[Thinkingabout]

7. well, do you know what the future may have been for the 15 year old?

He sure wasn't hanging out with the best company.

[delrem]

8. He's dead. The US killed him. Period.

I like that you feel safe, but I don't like that you feel it should come at such a price.

[Thinkingabout]

9. Like the price of 9/11?

[delrem]

10. The fact that the US killed him with a drone has nothing to do with "9/11".

I think your attempt at a "9/11" justification for his murder is pathological. Not reasonable at all.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Do you know the reason his father was sought?

[delrem]

12. He is not his father.

The notion that the US should have the right to "extra-judicially" assassinate not just a primary victim, but that victim's family, wiping the bloodline out, isn't bandied about much online. Are you really going there?

[Thinkingabout]

13. His father recruited followers to follow his commands. Again do you know the reason his father was

Sought?

[delrem]

14. OK. I write you off. Goodbye.

[JoeyT]

17. It's quite simple:

We gotta fight 'em over there so we don't gotta fight 'em over here!

[Recursion]

19. The son wasn't the target of the strike that killed him (nt)

[dionysus]

20. he knows this damn well. nt.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Who was the target of 9/11? I am still waiting on the answer.

There was a lot of people who was no given due process who was killed, how do you think the son of a terrorist getting killed is bad and the people who dies in this attack is just not a problem.

[Cal Carpenter]

32. What does a kid who was 3 or 4 years old in 2001 have to do

with the towers getting hit?

[Thinkingabout]

36. You have turned have the whole picture before understanding. Still

Don't have the reason why his father was sought.

[JoeyT]

16. That's one of the vilest defenses I've seen of that particular incident.

You've just declared that governments should kill citizens not just for thought crimes, but for potential future thought crimes, especially if they're related to criminals. You defend it by citing 9/11 over and over, which only makes sense if you operate on George Bush level logic of "Muslims did 9/11 so any Muslims we kill deserves it cause 9/11!".

Your arguments haven't shed any light at all on drone strikes or their legality, but they've pointed an entire sun worth of light at you.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Yes I continue to site 9/11, still I do not hear the reason why the father was targeted.

In order to make a judgement you have to access the whole facts and not the ones you choose. How many innocent people must die to satisfy the desires of terrorist.

[JoeyT]

34. It doesn't matter why the father was targeted.

Again: It. Does. Not. Matter.

The father being a terrorist doesn't mean you kill his children. That's something that you know...terrorists do.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Then the rest of the world can say it doesnt matter, the father should have protected

His son from harm. His father was more interested in other matters to care about his son.

[cprise]

30. Seriously?? 9/11 justifies guilt-by-proximity in drone strikes?

I'll bet you're fun at parties.

[Octafish]

2. Gosh. Whatever happened to the Right to sue government for a redress of grievances?

Something First Amendment thing piece of paper no one talks about anymore.

[pffshht]

15. You still have that right; but it's proportional to the amount of free speech you have

And "free speech" is equivalent to US dollars, according to recent Supreme Court decisions.
The net worth of Goldman Sachs is 45.59 billion; whereas the median net worth of an American individual is $38,756. So relative to Goldman Sachs', they can give approximately 1 / 1760000 of a shit about any of our grievances.

[Octafish]

22. The next big thing: proportional voting.

More dollars, more votes.

It's un-American, but fits in with modern government's mission of service to the wealthy.

The People will get used to it.

[Recursion]

18. Err... they did sue.

You aren't guaranteed a right to win that suit.

[Octafish]

21. Uh, I meant the Justice part.

You know, a government of laws, not men. The idea the nation was built on.

[Recursion]

23. So, the court applying the relevant case law on this question...

... is not an example of government of laws?

[Octafish]

26. What law says it's OK for a president to kill Americans without trial?

That's the law in question.

[Recursion]

27. In this case, the 2001 AUMF

The AUMF is way, way too broad (this is an example of why).

[Octafish]

28. That may trump the Constitution for you, but not for me.

Interpreting it does require SCOTUS to cough up a lot of 5-4 pretzels, though.

[Recursion]

29. Military targeting of US citizens goes back to 1791

This isn't exactly novel legal ground.

[Octafish]

31. So, you're OK with that?

This is the part I'm OK with:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- Fifth Amendment

No judge, no congress, no law, in my view, has the right to supersede that.

[Recursion]

33. What a weird question

I said, right above, that the AUMF was way too broad for exactly this reason. No, I'm not "for this".

[Octafish]

35. No. I found yours to be an odd answer.

Because you continue to find justification for "presidents" exercising unconstitutional authority, I raised my question.

[Recursion]

38. This is why I opposed the 2001 AUMF as written

There is a long precedent (back to the Whiskey Rebellion, the Quasi-War, and the Barbary Wars) that US citizens in a zone of combat deemed to be materially aiding the enemy are liable for military targeting. The 2001 AUMF (which Obama has repeatedly called on Congress to scale back) sets literally no geographical or temporal limits on the scope of military action. People got pissed at Obama for saying "the law would let me attack US citizens in the US, but I won't" -- the fact is he's completely right: the 2001 AUMF does pretty clearly allow that, which is why we need to get rid of it.

What's your argument against the judge's logic, anyways? She said "absent legislation from Congress, under the AUMF there is no legal relief". What law do you think gives legal relief?

You quoted the 5th Amendment, but I'm not sure why. Al-Awlaki was not convicted of a crime by the US, and IIRC not even charged (he was, however, convicted in absentia in Yemen). He's not been held for a crime or even charged with a crime; he was targeted like any other Al Qaeda operative. Just like the US citizens who were sailors on the pirate ships in the Barbary Wars (there were at least a dozen) were targeted under the hostis humani generis principle (which goes back long enough that its name is in Latin). I think you're ignoring the force of the legal precedent here if you expect a judge just to say "this is a bad law so I'm going to overturn it". It is a bad law, but you haven't yet given a reason why the judge should ignore it.

[Octafish]

39. A 16 year old American boy was killed for no good reason.

He's why.

Thanks for the history and background.

Some things once considered right by law are later found to be wrong.

[Recursion]

40. Several hundred younger Pakistanis have, too

This is why wars need clearly limited objectives in their declarations. Otherwise, there's the danger that they take on a logic of their own (see Clausewitz).

[Demeter]

4. The opposite of despair is anger

the opposite of futility is revolution.