• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge

B

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
 
Drone strikes against foreign countries without a declaration of war...the weapon of cowards and bullies.
 
DA60 said:
Drone strikes against foreign countries without a declaration of war...the weapon of cowards and bullies.
Click to expand...

Not to mention WAR CRIMINALS.
 
No surprise that another corrupt US judge would support the status quo. All 3 branches, corrupt as can be. :(
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

We are still finding our way in the treatment of terrorism. War was declared on the US, but it was by a non state collective. This is not traditionally what law has viewed as war. So we must probably address this legislatively.
After all few would say that these people were not deadly criminals hiding out. And had to be stopped. They were factually wanted dead or alive.

But you are right in that the decision requires thinking about.
 
joG said:
We are still finding our way in the treatment of terrorism. War was declared on the US, but it was by a non state collective. This is not traditionally what law has viewed as war. So we must probably address this legislatively.
After all few would say that these people were not deadly criminals hiding out. And had to be stopped. They were factually wanted dead or alive.

But you are right in that the decision requires thinking about.
Click to expand...

I also agree that the solution is not to throw our hands up and walk away just because wanted criminals don't want to turn themselves in to law enforcement. I think the solution is rather simple; American suspects should be tried in absentia if they refuse to avail themselves of their right to due process.
 
joG said:
We are still finding our way in the treatment of terrorism. War was declared on the US, but it was by a non state collective. This is not traditionally what law has viewed as war. So we must probably address this legislatively.
After all few would say that these people were not deadly criminals hiding out. And had to be stopped. They were factually wanted dead or alive.

But you are right in that the decision requires thinking about.
Click to expand...

Good heavens man, we have "found our way" in the GWOT, years ago. That's what the banner on the carrier said: Mission Accomplished, in finding our way in the GWOT. I'm still not sure who "we" actually is, but a way was found to the US Treasury, and it was duly looted, with the GWOT providing the cover for the plunder of the treasury.

This decision is John Yoo's legacy, and he's teaching law in California. Pretty sad statement for the US Legal Profession, those claiming to favor the rule of law.
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

It's an awkward situation with a great deal of potential for abuse, but the overall policy is the "correct" one.

The nature of terrorism is such that commanders can play their role from the comparative safety of battlefield free zones countries away from the main action, coordinating attacks through the 21st century's information infrastructure.

Not formulating a strategy that responds to those realities is the same thing as admitting that terrorists can attack us without any fear of reprisal.
 
Last edited:
Good. It should have been dismissed sooner.
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters





This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

And who do the courts work for again?
 
DA60 said:
Drone strikes against foreign countries without a declaration of war...the weapon of cowards and bullies.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, eventually, most of our military fighting can be done by remote control machines. I support anything that makes our soldiers safer.
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

1. The US has declared a war on terror.
2. No it was a military strike
3. Actually it wasn't it was directed at terrorists. why were americans hanging out with terrorist cells in a non-operation capacity.
4. actually treason is death.
 
X Factor said:
Good. It should have been dismissed sooner.
Click to expand...

No grounds for dismissal.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[251] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[252] According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was reported to have gone out in the desert to search for his missing father but was sitting in a cafe when he was killed.[253] Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism.​

Out and out cold-blooded murder of an teenager not accused of any crime. The US might as well have sent an assassin to walk up to the boy and put a bullet through his forehead just because they didn't like the shoes he was wearing.
 
Henry David said:
Good heavens man, we have "found our way" in the GWOT, years ago. That's what the banner on the carrier said: Mission Accomplished, in finding our way in the GWOT. I'm still not sure who "we" actually is, but a way was found to the US Treasury, and it was duly looted, with the GWOT providing the cover for the plunder of the treasury.

This decision is John Yoo's legacy, and he's teaching law in California. Pretty sad statement for the US Legal Profession, those claiming to favor the rule of law.
Click to expand...

One of the main problems in politics is that so many people think that things are well understood and the consequences known, when as here the thing is still developing. I don't know if you ever researched Yoo's work, did a comparative evaluation on handling of the topic in other countries or even read the texts. As a first step in a long evolution of domestic and international legal thinking it was maybe not brilliant and probably not what you would like, but it was also not so bad as you seem to think. At least the Administration thought about things, weighed them and came to understandable decisions. This is much more honest and methodologically correct, than you will find in most of the capitols of our allies.
 
Napoleon said:
I also agree that the solution is not to throw our hands up and walk away just because wanted criminals don't want to turn themselves in to law enforcement. I think the solution is rather simple; American suspects should be tried in absentia if they refuse to avail themselves of their right to due process.
Click to expand...

I Think, your proposal is the best alternative and that the due process needs to be public. Involving judges in a secret process is not at all satisfactory. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the type of poof required cannot be the same as in domestic crime prosecution, because the forensics of the foreign battlefield are quite different than in a home.
 
the US has a long history of using deadly force against peoples without a declaration of war. Why all the outrage now?
 
1750Texan said:
the US has a long history of using deadly force against peoples without a declaration of war. Why all the outrage now?
Click to expand...

You're an American, right? Imagine that you go and visit Paris. Does you being out of the country now make it legal for the US government to assassinate you when you haven't been accused of a crime, haven't been investigated for a crime, haven't been charged with a crime, haven't been convicted of a crime, and haven't fled justice after conviction? There you are at the foot of the Eiffel Tower and an American assassin walks up to you and fires a bullet into your head and then walks away. No crime committed.
 
DA60 said:
Drone strikes against foreign countries without a declaration of war...the weapon of cowards and bullies.
Click to expand...

We haven't declared war since WW II. Launching imperial, undeclared wars that bog down, kill thousands of Americans, cost trillions of dollars, accomplish nothing, and just propels us into the next undeclared war is sort of our bag.
 
X Factor said:
Hopefully, eventually, most of our military fighting can be done by remote control machines. I support anything that makes our soldiers safer.
Click to expand...

How about avoiding messy, aggressive wars of foreign occupation in the first place?
 
X Factor said:
Hopefully, eventually, most of our military fighting can be done by remote control machines. I support anything that makes our soldiers safer.
Click to expand...

I don't. Without the tangible morality of loss of human life, war literally becomes a video game.
 
StringBean said:
I don't. Without the tangible morality of loss of human life, war literally becomes a video game.
Click to expand...

"War is a Racket" - U.S. General Smedley Butler

And in all wars, over 90% of the casualties are innocent civilians. Those who dream of waging war via "remote control machines" should stick to Xbox games to satisfy their lust for remote control war, no one gets hurt.
 
RiverDad said:
No grounds for dismissal.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[251] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[252] According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was reported to have gone out in the desert to search for his missing father but was sitting in a cafe when he was killed.[253] Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism.​

Out and out cold-blooded murder of an teenager not accused of any crime. The US might as well have sent an assassin to walk up to the boy and put a bullet through his forehead just because they didn't like the shoes he was wearing.
Click to expand...

For clarification Abdulrahman was not the target, several Al-Qaeda officers whom he was congregating with were. My understanding is that we didn't even know he was there.
 
Sherman123 said:
For clarification Abdulrahman was not the target, several Al-Qaeda officers whom he was congregating with were. My understanding is that we didn't even know he was there.
Click to expand...

From the New York Times:

Then, on Oct. 14, a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted.​

Killing dozens of cafe patrons in order to kill one suspected "operative" is morally repugnant. When the suspect is not even there we're dealing with outright cold-blooded murder.
 
RiverDad said:
From the New York Times:

Then, on Oct. 14, a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted.​

Killing dozens of cafe patrons in order to kill one suspected "operative" is morally repugnant. When the suspect is not even there we're dealing with outright cold-blooded murder.
Click to expand...

Reading the excerpt it doesn't seem like we knew there were a dozen people in the cafe.
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

this is the consequnces of engaging in a "war on terror"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom