• Like
  • Save
The Administration Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Drone That Killed an American Citizen
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The Administration Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Drone That Killed an American Citizen

on

  • 287 views

In the latest sign that President Obama's targeted killing program may be forever shrouded in secrecy, ...

In the latest sign that President Obama's targeted killing program may be forever shrouded in secrecy,
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has denied a Freedom of Information Request from the
American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times over the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the
16-year-old American-born son of former Al-Queda heavy Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed by a drone
strike.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
287
Views on SlideShare
287
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The Administration Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Drone That Killed an American Citizen The Administration Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Drone That Killed an American Citizen Document Transcript

    • The Administration Really Doesn’t Want to TalkAbout the Drone That Killed an AmericanCitizenConnor SimpsonThe Atlantic WireJanuary 3, 2013In the latest sign that President Obamas targeted killing program may be forever shrouded in secrecy,U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has denied a Freedom of Information Request from theAmerican Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times over the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the16-year-old American-born son of former Al-Queda heavy Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed by a dronestrike.But, in this case, the administration withheld answering any of the ACLUs questions through a seriesof exemptions that lets the Executive bench protect confidential information. McMahons decisionseems pretty disappointed by the administrations actions:However, this Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Governmenthas not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and socannot be compelled by this court oflaw to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violatethe Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-inWonderland nature of this pronouncementis not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxicalsituation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules - a veritableCatch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow theExecutive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on theirface incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion asecret. The ACLU and The New York Times were asking for the justification of not just this dronestrike, but justification of the whole drone strike program: The FOIA requests here in issue implicate
    • serious issues about the limits on the power of theExecutive Branch under the Constitution and laws of theUnited States, and about whether we are indeed a nationoflaws, not of men. The Administration has engaged inpublic discussion of the legality of targeted killing, evenof citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways, generallywithout citing to any statute or court decision that justifiesits conclusions.Questions surrounding the killing of the 16-year-old haveswirled for a while. Obamas senior adviser RobertGibbs gave a particularly ugly answer justifying theyounger al-Awlakis death on the campaign trail.The administration is clearly not ready to talk delicatelyabout this. Just last week, the administration asked a federal court to dismiss lawsuits from the estatesof three families of American citizens killed by drone strike in Yemen, one of which was the al-Awlakiestate. News came out at the end of November that the administration started to draft a rule book forthe drone strike program, propelled by the prospect of having to hand off the program to a potentialRomney administration. These are pretty big signs that Obama, his advisors, his lawyers, and the CIAarent quite ready to jump into the grander debate over the ethics of drones just yet — or, you know,ever.Obama Signs Sweeping U.S. DefenseSpending BillThe TelegraphJanuary 3, 2013Barack Obama has signed into law a $633 billion (£390 billion) US defence spending bill thatfunds the war in Afghanistan and boosts security at US missions worldwide."I have approved this annual defence authorisation legislation, as I have in previous years,
    • because it authorises essential support forservice members and their families, renewsvital national security programs, and helpsensure that the United States will continue tohave the strongest military in the world,"Mr Obama said in a statement early onThursday after signing the measure.Mr Obama, who is on holiday in Hawaii, saidthat he signed the measure despite reservations."In a time when all public servants recognisethe need to eliminate wasteful or duplicativespending, various sections in the Act limit theDefense Departments ability to direct scarceresources towards the highest priorities for ournational security," the president said."Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act ... I do not agree withthem all," he said in his statement, adding that he did not have the constitutional authority to approvepiecemeal items within the sprawling bill."I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole," he said.The measure was hammered out by House and Senate conferees last month after each chambervoted to approve separate versions of the bill. It includes $527.4 billion for the base Pentagon budget; $88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations including the war in Afghanistan; and $17.8 billion for national security programs in the Energy Department and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The bill authorises $9.8 billion for missile defence, including funds for a Pentagon feasibility study on three possible missile defence sites on the US East Coast. It also extends for one year the restriction on use of US funds to transfer Guantánamo inmates to other countries, a limitation critics say marks a setback for Mr Obamas efforts to close the detention centre. Mr Obama also signed a bill that boosts taxes on the wealthiest Americans, while preserving tax cuts for most American households. The bill, which averts a looming fiscal cliff that had threatened to plunge the nation back into recession, alsoextends expiring jobless benefits, prevents cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and delays fortwo months billions of dollars in across-the-board spending cuts in defense and domestic programs.The Republican-run House approved the measure by a 257-167 vote late Tuesday, nearly 24 hours afterthe Democratic-led Senate passed it 89-8.
    • The Total Breakdown of SocietyInfowars.comJan 3, 2012Alex Jones gives this special report on the breakdown of our society and what the future America willlook like in the years to come in this 1984 style existence.The Total Breakdown of Society VIDEO BELOWhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mem4B5TsHAIBilderberg Elite Angry Over “ConstantExposure”Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comJanuary 3, 2013Increased media coverage could forcesecretive group to avoid EuropeAccording to veteran journalist JimTucker, Bilderberg elitists are furious overthe “constant exposure” the secretivegroup is receiving in the European media,forcing members to consider theunprecedented step of holding theorganization’s annual meeting in theUnited States for two years running.
    • The US corporate media routinely ignores what would normally be considered a sensational story –over 100 of the world’s most powerful people – including the likes of Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger,David Rockefeller, Herman van Rompuy, and the Queen of the Netherlands – meeting behind closeddoors to discuss the future of the world.However, European news outlets have given the event more intense press coverage in recent years,leading Bilderberg members to prefer the relative anonymity they are afforded by the more controlledU.S. media.“A source at the November 30-December 3 meeting in Washington of Bilderberg’s North AmericanGroup overheard Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush, sayBilderberg and the TC (Trilateral Commission) are angry over “their constant exposure,” adding thatorganizers were contemplating holding the next Bilderberg meeting in the U.S. in order to keep a lowerprofile,” writes Tucker, who notes that it will be a significant financial burden for Bilderberg to changetheir venue given that they have to book out an entire luxury hotel two years in advance.So has the Bilderberg Group been hounded out of Europe? Has the glare of the media spotlight inEurope forced the cabal to take the unprecedented step of hosting their conference in America for twoyears running?2011 proved to be a bad year for Bilderberg.Despite choosing to host their conferencehalf way up a mountain in the remote Swissresort of St. Moritz, hundreds of protesterswere encamped right outside the Suvrettahotel. Members of boththe European and Swissparliaments attempted to enter theconference, prompting unwelcome presscoverage, and Bilderberg attendeesthemselves were confronted by inquisitivedemonstrators during an afternoon strolldown the mountain.
    • Returning to America in 2012, Bilderberg were able to rely on tighter security and a compliant mediathat virtually blacklisted their presence.It seems unlikely that the 2013 confab won’t be held somewhere in Europe given the fact that everytime the event has taken place in the States, the following year it has switched to the other continent. Inaddition, the annual confab of Bilderberg’s sister organization, the Trilateral Commission, will takeplace in Berlin, Germany from March 15-17.The last time Bilderberg held their conference in Chantilly Virginia, the following year it was held inAthens, Greece.The theme of Bilderberg members expressing vitriol at the fact that their conferences are beingprotested by larger and more vocal crowds of people has repeatedly cropped up in recent years.During last year’s confab in Chantilly, a source working inside the Westfields Marriott hotel toldLondon Guardian journalist Charlie Skelton that Bilderberg attendees referred to protesters outside thehotel as “cockroaches”.During the 2010 Bilderberg meeting in Spain, members were overheard complaining about the fact thatdemonstrators could even afford to travel to different countries in order to make their voices heard andthat the fact they still had an income that allowed them to do so was a “permanent threat” to and “veryscary” to Bilderberg’s agenda.http://www.infowars.com/