PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues ACLU sues Obama administration over assassination secrecy


Taco John
02-02-2012, 04:28 PM
ACLU sues Obama administration over assassination secrecy

The ACLU yesterday filed a lawsuit against various agencies of the Obama administration — the Justice and Defense Departments and the CIA — over their refusal to disclose any information about the assassination of American citizens. In October, the ACLU filed a FOIA request demanding disclosure of the most basic information about the CIA’s killing of 3 American citizens in Yemen: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan, killed by missiles fired by a U.S. drone in September, and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, killed by another drone attack two weeks later.

More... (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/aclu_sues_obama_administration_over_assassination_secrecy/singleton/)

Taco John
02-02-2012, 04:28 PM
You with the ACLU or are you with Obama on this one?

Taco John
02-02-2012, 04:30 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bvNj0.jpg

jiveturkey
02-02-2012, 04:36 PM
You with the ACLU or are you with Obama on this one?
ACLU

blaise
02-02-2012, 04:38 PM
Transparency.

Amnorix
02-02-2012, 04:53 PM
You with the ACLU or are you with Obama on this one?



I am on the ACLU's side more frequently than most on here.

But on this, I'll take Obama's. I'm not keen to let anything go public that can damage our anti-terrorism efforts.

Amnorix
02-02-2012, 04:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bvNj0.jpg


Yeah, funny how once you get into the Big Chair your perspective can change. When you learn WTF is really going on and how many threats there are, and when you're the one who might be responsible for thousands of Americans dying...

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 04:57 PM
I LOVE it! The ACLU of course.

Donger
02-02-2012, 05:31 PM
You with the ACLU or are you with Obama on this one?

Obama. No question.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 05:53 PM
Yeah, funny how once you get into the Big Chair your perspective can change. When you learn WTF is really going on and how many threats there are, and when you're the one who might be responsible for thousands of Americans dying...

Oh come on. You actually believe that Obama believed the stuff he was saying? I guess I'm far more cynical than you, because I believe he knew he was working for all along. Candidates don't come from out of nowhere like that. He was a manufactured product the entire time. He's great at throwing out red meat, but when it comes to his actions, he's a corporate product just like Bush was.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 05:55 PM
Obama. No question.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you think presidents should be able to murder 16 year old kids without any checks or balances...

mlyonsd
02-02-2012, 06:36 PM
I'm with Obama on this one.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 06:56 PM
I'm with Obama on this one.

You, I'm a little more surprised at. How can you think it's ok that Obama killed a 16 year old kid without any check or balance? Do you really believe this kid was a threat to our national security?

alnorth
02-02-2012, 07:00 PM
neither, really. I don't get the focus on American citizenship, where if they are Canadian suddenly we don't care.

We should be outraged, or not outraged depending on the circumstances, at the "assassination" itself. If it is OK to blow up a citizen of Afghanistan, then its OK to blow up an American in that same situation and place. If its not OK to blow up an American in a particular situation and place, it shouldn't be OK to blow anyone up in that same situation and place, regardless of citizenship.

Citizenship should be an irrelevant detail in those situations. They aren't trying to vote, collect welfare benefits, or live here without a Visa.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 07:07 PM
neither, really. I don't get the focus on American citizenship, where if they are Canadian suddenly we don't care.

We should be outraged, or not outraged depending on the circumstances, at the "assassination" itself. If it is OK to blow up a citizen of Afghanistan, then its OK to blow up an American in that same situation and place. If its not OK to blow up an American in a particular situation and place, it shouldn't be OK to blow anyone up in that same situation and place, regardless of citizenship.

Citizenship should be an irrelevant detail in those situations. They aren't trying to vote, collect welfare benefits, or live here without a Visa.

I concur. It's a person.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 11:00 PM
neither, really. I don't get the focus on American citizenship, where if they are Canadian suddenly we don't care.

We should be outraged, or not outraged depending on the circumstances, at the "assassination" itself. If it is OK to blow up a citizen of Afghanistan, then its OK to blow up an American in that same situation and place. If its not OK to blow up an American in a particular situation and place, it shouldn't be OK to blow anyone up in that same situation and place, regardless of citizenship.

Citizenship should be an irrelevant detail in those situations. They aren't trying to vote, collect welfare benefits, or live here without a Visa.

I agree with that, but a concept so simple doesn't seem to gain much traction in America today, so I'm more than willing to contract the discussion to the tiny corral that more people can wrap their heads around. I can't understand how anybody could support the idea that the president can give an order to kill a 16 year old kid (like he has done) without any check or balance. If Bush had done that, there would have been rioting in the streets. When Obama does it, people high five and say it's right and proper. Blows my mind.

banyon
02-02-2012, 11:08 PM
The order was to kill Awlaki, not the kid.

Also, I don't consider someone who has declared war on our country and way of life and who is actively recruiting people to harm Americans a US Citizen to be afforded the full panopoly of rights any longer.

Similarly, Lincoln didn't put every Confederate soldier on trial during the middle of the Civil War before shooting for rather obvious reasons.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 11:09 PM
I concur. It's a person.

Hoooollllyyyy shit BEP and I agree, no we concur. I didn't know that was possible.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 11:10 PM
Except we're not legally in a state of war with anyone.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 11:11 PM
Hoooollllyyyy shit BEP and I agree, no we concur. I didn't know that was possible.

So that means I can have dinner with you, now? :p

dirk digler
02-02-2012, 11:11 PM
I agree with that, but a concept so simple doesn't seem to gain much traction in America today, so I'm more than willing to contract the discussion to the tiny corral that more people can wrap their heads around. I can't understand how anybody could support the idea that the president can give an order to kill a 16 year old kid (like he has done) without any check or balance. If Bush had done that, there would have been rioting in the streets. When Obama does it, people high five and say it's right and proper. Blows my mind.

Abdulrahman al-awlaki wasn't targeted he was killed because he was hanging out with an AQ leader. Shit happens. My advice is not to hang out with AQ.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 11:12 PM
It's like the Ruby Ridge stupidity. You start shooting at ATF / law enforcement officers or refuse to surrender your weapons, you had better expect bad things are very likely to happen.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 11:14 PM
So that means I can have dinner with you, now? :p

Just so you know I only go to 1st base on the first date :)

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 11:15 PM
Just so you know I only go to 1st base on the first date :)

Do you pay or are you for equal rights?

BTW I am not for equal rights.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 11:17 PM
And personally if the government (not Obama) decides to release some information without revealing classified information I'm fine with that.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 11:18 PM
Do you pay or are you for equal rights?

BTW I am not for equal rights.

I almost always pay.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 11:19 PM
The order was to kill Awlaki, not the kid.


Two weeks after Awlaki was dead? (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/)

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 11:22 PM
I almost always pay.

Hmmmm...."almost" always? :p

Not bad.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 11:22 PM
Abdulrahman al-awlaki wasn't targeted he was killed because he was hanging out with an AQ leader. Shit happens. My advice is not to hang out with AQ.

1. Awlaki wasn't an AQ leader any more than Al Sharpton is a leader of the Democrat party.

2. The kid was grieving his dead father who had died two weeks prior. Obama had them drop a bomb on him while he was cooking a burger and hanging out with his cousin and 7 other people.

3. You clearly are among the ignorant masses who have managed to have this entire incident white washed in your brains without bothering to scrutinize any of it. Congrats on that.

Demonpenz
02-02-2012, 11:28 PM
I can't prenounce his name..so good... no where's my red solo cup

dirk digler
02-02-2012, 11:31 PM
1. Awlaki wasn't an AQ leader any more than Al Sharpton is a leader of the Democrat party.

2. The kid was grieving his dead father who had died two weeks prior. Obama had them drop a bomb on him while he was cooking a burger and hanging out with his cousin and 7 other people.

3. You clearly are among the ignorant masses who have managed to have this entire incident white washed in your brains without bothering to scrutinize any of it. Congrats on that.

His son wasn't targeted he was collateral damage. He shouldn't been hanging out with AQ leaders.... duh

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki died in a separate U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14 along with six others, including Ibrahim al-Bana, an Egyptian whom U.S. officials identified as an operational al Qaeda leader.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 11:32 PM
I can't prenounce his name..so good... no where's my red solo cup

It happened in Yemen, not Youngstown. Now shut up, Jersey Shore is starting.

Taco John
02-02-2012, 11:35 PM
His son wasn't targeted he was collateral damage. He shouldn't been hanging out with AQ leaders.... duh

Your complicit speculation should make you feel shame, not justified. But I'm no longer surprised what creatures like yourself can rationalize anymore. Your justification of turning a 16-year old kid into a stain makes me wonder what you were doing when you were 16 years old, and how aware of the world you were. It makes me wonder what you'll think when you have a 16-year old son, and how you'd react if he were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time so that some politician somewhere could add a notch to his re-election credentials.

I think Glen Greenwald knocks it out of the park:

For many people, this type of secrecy is not bothersome because — when their party controls the White House — they trust their leader to be honest and act properly; that’s what Bush followers who viewed Bush as a good, earnest Christian constantly said in response to objections over radical secrecy, and it’s what many Obama followers say now (if Obama says someone is a Terrorist, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure he is – if Obama says Iran is behind a Terrorist plot, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure they are). But that obviously isn’t a healthy mindset when forming expectations of political leaders. More so, you can’t have a functioning democracy if the government refuses even to discuss its most radical and significant acts. The Obama administration is just off waging a secret war in Yemen, killing its own citizens from the sky, and refusing to account to anyone for what it’s doing. If you accept that level of secrecy, what don’t you accept?

dirk digler
02-02-2012, 11:44 PM
Your complicit speculation should make you feel shame, not justified. But I'm no longer surprised what creatures like yourself can rationalize anymore. Your justification of turning a 16-year old kid into a stain makes me wonder what you were doing when you were 16 years old, and how aware of the world you were.

I think Glen Greenwald knocks it out of the park:For many people, this type of secrecy is not bothersome because — when their party controls the White House — they trust their leader to be honest and act properly; that’s what Bush followers who viewed Bush as a good, earnest Christian constantly said in response to objections over radical secrecy, and it’s what many Obama followers say now (if Obama says someone is a Terrorist, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure he is – if Obama says Iran is behind a Terrorist plot, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure they are). But that obviously isn’t a healthy mindset when forming expectations of political leaders. More so, you can’t have a functioning democracy if the government refuses even to discuss its most radical and significant acts. The Obama administration is just off waging a secret war in Yemen, killing its own citizens from the sky, and refusing to account to anyone for what it’s doing. If you accept that level of secrecy, what don’t you accept?

I am not rationalizing anything the facts are the facts. He was killed because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time not because he was the target.

As far as killing his father I have mixed feelings on it. Obviously it should be very rare that we have to do targeted assassinations of Americans.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 12:02 AM
I am not rationalizing anything the facts are the facts. He was killed because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time not because he was the target.

As far as killing his father I have mixed feelings on it. Obviously it should be very rare that we have to do targeted assassinations of Americans.

There's supposed to be a secret list written by others that the WH is using. Sounds like more is coming.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 12:10 AM
Your complicit speculation should make you feel shame, not justified. But I'm no longer surprised what creatures like yourself can rationalize anymore. Your justification of turning a 16-year old kid into a stain makes me wonder what you were doing when you were 16 years old, and how aware of the world you were. It makes me wonder what you'll think when you have a 16-year old son, and how you'd react if he were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time so that some politician somewhere could add a notch to his re-election credentials.

I think Glen Greenwald knocks it out of the park:

For many people, this type of secrecy is not bothersome because — when their party controls the White House — they trust their leader to be honest and act properly; that’s what Bush followers who viewed Bush as a good, earnest Christian constantly said in response to objections over radical secrecy, and it’s what many Obama followers say now (if Obama says someone is a Terrorist, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure he is – if Obama says Iran is behind a Terrorist plot, I don’t need to see evidence: I’m sure they are). But that obviously isn’t a healthy mindset when forming expectations of political leaders. More so, you can’t have a functioning democracy if the government refuses even to discuss its most radical and significant acts. The Obama administration is just off waging a secret war in Yemen, killing its own citizens from the sky, and refusing to account to anyone for what it’s doing. If you accept that level of secrecy, what don’t you accept?

I love Greenwald.

Let's not conflate the shadowy, surgical manhunt of a decades-long terrorist of historical proportions with mass drone strikes in Yemen, however.

I honestly don't know if I agree with Obama or the ACLU on this issue. Whoever wins their day in court, that's who I'm siding with. Both have legitimate claims on the issue.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 02:00 AM
I am not rationalizing anything the facts are the facts. He was killed because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time not because he was the target.

As far as killing his father I have mixed feelings on it. Obviously it should be very rare that we have to do targeted assassinations of Americans.

You don't have any facts, what are you talking about? You're just making conjecture. Who was the target if he wasn't? You don't know, because they won't tell you.

It's funny you say "the facts are the facts" and then present nothing but conjecture. Meanwhile a 16 year old American kid was killed without a trial, without charges, without due process, and for all we know, without any real cause.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 02:01 AM
I love Greenwald.

Let's not conflate the shadowy, surgical manhunt of a decades-long terrorist of historical proportions with mass drone strikes in Yemen, however.

I honestly don't know if I agree with Obama or the ACLU on this issue. Whoever wins their day in court, that's who I'm siding with. Both have legitimate claims on the issue.


You're hilarious. Decades long terrorist? Let's not conflate the Rush Limbaugh of Al Quadea with actual terrorists. Alawki was a blow hard, nothing more. He was no mastermind. He was just a mouthy zealot who happened to be an American.

Amnorix
02-03-2012, 07:37 AM
It happened in Yemen, not Youngstown. Now shut up, Jersey Shore is starting.


The fact that it happened in Yemen, not Youngstown, is why I'm not so agitated. if this happened in Youngstown, then we have a major problem.

Amnorix
02-03-2012, 07:38 AM
You're hilarious. Decades long terrorist? Let's not conflate the Rush Limbaugh of Al Quadea with actual terrorists. Alawki was a blow hard, nothing more. He was no mastermind. He was just a mouthy zealot who happened to be an American.


And Josef Goebbels was just a mouthy zealot who happened to be a Nazi.

He still deserved to fucking die. Sorry.

Amnorix
02-03-2012, 07:46 AM
Your complicit speculation should make you feel shame, not justified. But I'm no longer surprised what creatures like yourself can rationalize anymore. Your justification of turning a 16-year old kid into a stain makes me wonder what you were doing when you were 16 years old, and how aware of the world you were. It makes me wonder what you'll think when you have a 16-year old son, and how you'd react if he were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time so that some politician somewhere could add a notch to his re-election credentials.



You seem confused about what collateral damage is. In this context, collateral damage is accidental or incidental damage to other persons or property that occurs when a TARGET is removed.

The question, as it relates to collateral damage, is purely a political one. Assuming that the target is a justified, legitimate target, then there are procedures to take it out, and procedures around whether the collateral damage involved is worth the (political) price that would be paid in that specific situation.

The kid wasn't the target.

Look, if I'm Obama and I've got a target field that has (entirely hypothetically), the #2, 5 and 7 Al Quada men in Yemen and the #6 and 16 guy in the world, all in one nice, neat gathering, then it's going to take a helluva lot more than one 16 year old kid for me to refrain from pulling the trigger.

THAT'S collateral damage, and whether the kid is a US citizen or not isn't going to stop me. Your Daddy fucked up and now he's dead, and now he's gotten you dead too. Some really bad decision by your Dad on who to be pals with.

You don't seem to understand that they want to kill us and our people. They have SAID it, and they have DONE it. In my mind, that means we take steps to prevent them from ever doing it again.

banyon
02-03-2012, 07:59 AM
Two weeks after Awlaki was dead? (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/)
Not sure what the link was supposed to show, but it just took me to salon's front page.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 07:59 AM
You don't have any facts, what are you talking about? You're just making conjecture. Who was the target if he wasn't? You don't know, because they won't tell you.

It's funny you say "the facts are the facts" and then present nothing but conjecture. Meanwhile a 16 year old American kid was killed without a trial, without charges, without due process, and for all we know, without any real cause.

Do you have a learning disability? Ibrahim al-Banna was the target, this has been confirmed on and off the record by military and administration officials. If you don't want to believe them fine.

The ministry said in a statement on Saturday that Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Banna was killed on Friday night in Shabwa province.

Security officials said the air strike was among five that targeted al-Qaeda positions in Shabwa.

The statement added that al-Banna was wanted "internationally" for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen.

"He was one of the group's most dangerous operatives," it said.

The first strike late Friday targeted a house in the Azan district of Shabwa, but hit just after al-Qaeda fighters had a meeting in the building, security officials and tribal elders said.

They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 08:04 AM
You, I'm a little more surprised at. How can you think it's ok that Obama killed a 16 year old kid without any check or balance? Do you really believe this kid was a threat to our national security?I believe the kid was collateral damage. Is it the kid you're upset about or his father, or both?

When you declare war on your own country checks and balances isn't on the top of the checklist IMO.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 08:08 AM
I agree with that, but a concept so simple doesn't seem to gain much traction in America today, so I'm more than willing to contract the discussion to the tiny corral that more people can wrap their heads around. I can't understand how anybody could support the idea that the president can give an order to kill a 16 year old kid (like he has done) without any check or balance. If Bush had done that, there would have been rioting in the streets. When Obama does it, people high five and say it's right and proper. Blows my mind.

Now this I totally agree with. Our liberal brethren would still be going ape shit if Bush would have been in charge.

Amnorix
02-03-2012, 08:10 AM
Now this I totally agree with. Our liberal brethren would still be going ape shit if Bush would have been in charge.


You seem to forget that your "liberal brethren" never opposed the actions in Afghanistan and steadfastly supported actions against Al Quada. Sure, a few FAR left whackos, who don't support any military actions againts anyone, ever, were out there, but the vast majority were firm in their support.

Bush was excoriated for (1) invading Iraq, and (2) poor execution of strategic plans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Amnorix
02-03-2012, 08:11 AM
Now this I totally agree with. Our liberal brethren would still be going ape shit if Bush would have been in charge.


And, FTR, only Nixon could go to China. These things do come into play, of course, but it certainly works both ways, doesn't it?

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 08:13 AM
Now this I totally agree with. Our liberal brethren would still be going ape shit if Bush would have been in charge.

I partly disagree. There is liberal groups that are upset with Obama for the drone program though they are a minority.

I can only speak for myself that if Bush was in charge and killed the kid I would probably feel the same way. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the military probably didn't even know he was there.

The killing of the father on the other hand is a different story. Like I said earlier I am divided on this issue....

patteeu
02-03-2012, 08:17 AM
I agree with the ACLU...

more often than I agree with Obama...

but in this case, our broken-clock-in-chief is having one of his two moments.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 08:41 AM
You seem to forget that your "liberal brethren" never opposed the actions in Afghanistan and steadfastly supported actions against Al Quada. Sure, a few FAR left whackos, who don't support any military actions againts anyone, ever, were out there, but the vast majority were firm in their support.

Bush was excoriated for (1) invading Iraq, and (2) poor execution of strategic plans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.Even in your examples I'm correct.

(2) I agree with but on (1) the left still is hypocritical. So save me the lecture.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 08:42 AM
And, FTR, only Nixon could go to China. These things do come into play, of course, but it certainly works both ways, doesn't it?Sure it works both ways. I never said it didn't.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 11:59 AM
Sure it works both ways. I never said it didn't.

yeah, those two-headed dildos work really well...