Terrorist Lawsuit

[Aurielius]

Relatives of three U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes in Yemen last year, including radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, are suing the U.S. government for targeting the terrorism suspects "without due process."

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed Wednesday, claims that the killings of U.S. citizens al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and operative Samir Khan were unconstitutional. Khan was the publisher of the terror magazine Inspire.

 

The complaint, prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights, was filed against four senior national security officials: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and senior commanders of the military’s Special Operations forces, Adm. William McRaven of the Navy and Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel of the Army.

The lawsuit says: "The U.S. practice of 'targeted killing' has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines."

"These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts. ... The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law," the lawsuit says.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki, though, was considered a dangerous enemy of the United States linked to several attempted attacks and plots.

President Obama said after his death that Awlaki "took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

 

I have my own view of the validity of this case but am curious of our forum members especially non Americans. There is little doubt that it will not succeed through the process of federal court system due to the executive waivers built into the Homeland Security Act of 2002 but that is not my question.....is it a valid civil suit or a frivolous use of the courts?

 

Question edited due to Daedalus's valid point about the usage of frivolous. Does this suit have merit or is it baseless?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Aurielius

[DaedalusMachina]

I don't know if "frivolous" is the right word, as when you're dealing with the deaths of three, there is no frivolity. As to validity? I won't comment. Don't know enough about the case, or how the whole thing works, and it's beyond the reach of the ***** I give.

[Moveing]

Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11

 

They will use his case, totaly manufactured, to create precedence for future killings of U.S. homegrown Terrorists.

 

The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police

 

And Videogames and fiction like Call of Duty Black Ops2 show us scenarios how the drones taking over the US. Oh ofcourse they are hacked... So... The Hackers did this.

 

 

Anwar al-Awlaki, though, was considered a dangerous enemy of the United States linked to several attempted attacks and plots.

So what kills the most Americans? Car accidents, obesity, prescription drugs. These things kill thousands every year. But give up your freedome because some kook in a cave or a hut in the desert could get you.

[HeyYou]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

[Aurielius]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

[HeyYou]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

 

You look good in green. :)

 

I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

[Aurielius]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

 

You look good in green. :)

 

I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

Maybe I was not clear enough, on the ground in a firefight shoot first and check passports later. What I was talking about is using a drone to go after a specific target that we know is an American citizen before launch of a hellfire. In other words, the citizen was the primary objective from the moment the predator took to the air, not collateral damage.

[HeyYou]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

 

You look good in green. :)

 

I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

Maybe I was not clear enough, on the ground in a firefight shoot first and check passports later. What I was talking about is using a drone to go after a specific target that we know is an American citizen before launch of a hellfire. In other words, the citizen was the primary objective from the moment the predator took to the air, not collateral damage.

 

Yeah, there is that minor "foreknowledge" deal...... But, what ya gonna do? Wait a month or more for authorization to work its way thru the system? At which point, said citizen is highly likely to be elsewhere... I suppose, if you had a 'target list'..... which I am sure we do..... getting some flavor of apprehend if possible/kill otherwise... order would be acceptable??

[grannywils]

I must admit to having little knowledge of this particular suit and action. However, prior to coming on the thread to respond I did some reading on the subject; and based on what I have read I believe that the suit does have some validity. It sounds to me as though the drone attack was just a bit of overkill (poor phrasing under the circumstances). From what I read (In the International Herald Tribune, A), it seems as though there may have been opportunities to capture these people and lessen the possibility of the collateral damage to innocents.

 

In addition I have some serious questions about the drones being let loose in our own country despite what some have said about their intended "legitimate" usage. I just don't buy that for a minute.

[Aurielius]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

 

You look good in green. :)

 

I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

Maybe I was not clear enough, on the ground in a firefight shoot first and check passports later. What I was talking about is using a drone to go after a specific target that we know is an American citizen before launch of a hellfire. In other words, the citizen was the primary objective from the moment the predator took to the air, not collateral damage.

 

Yeah, there is that minor "foreknowledge" deal...... But, what ya gonna do? Wait a month or more for authorization to work its way thru the system? At which point, said citizen is highly likely to be elsewhere... I suppose, if you had a 'target list'..... which I am sure we do..... getting some flavor of apprehend if possible/kill otherwise... order would be acceptable??

Yes I could live with that as long as apprehend was considered seriously and not just a pro forma box to be checked off while the missile was going downrange. .