Interesting. Some thoughts. How many English died in the German bombing during the summer of 1940? Now there was a real threat to national security, but the British more or less took it in their stride.
How many Americans have died in Terrorist attacks, and add a reasonable number who might have died had a couple failed attacks succeeded. I don't think the number is great enough; I don't think even the total possible number over a 10 year period, is any great deal. Terrorism really is no threat at all that is worth giving attention to. The _only_ point of the War on Terror is the destruction of bourgeois liberty in the U.S. The War on Terror is _purely_ an attack on Americans by their own government. The word "fascism" isd terribly misleading. What is happening in the U.S., is actually worse than "Fascism" and we don't have a decent word for it. Carrol P.S. I'll be gone for three weeks. My son and his wife (just married in NYC) are having a second wedding in her parents' home town in Rumania. After the wedding we are doing a bit of travelling. We will be back Aug. 10. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 9:33 AM > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition; Progressive Economics > Subject: [Pen-l] Judge Challenges White House Claims on Authority in Drone > Killings > > (The judge alluded to in the title of the article was a Bush appointee.) > > NY Times July 19, 2013 > Judge Challenges White House Claims on Authority in Drone Killings > By SCOTT SHANE > > WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday sharply and repeatedly > challenged the Obama administration's claim that courts have no power > over targeted drone killings of American citizens overseas. > > Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court here was > hearing the government's request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by relatives > of three Americans killed in two drone strikes in Yemen in 2011: Anwar > al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who had joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian > Peninsula; Mr. Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had no > involvement in terrorism; and Samir Khan, a 30-year-old North Carolina > man who had become a propagandist for the same Qaeda branch. > > Judge Collyer said she was "troubled" by the government's assertion that > it could kill American citizens it designated as dangerous, with no role > for courts to review the decision. > > "Are you saying that a U.S. citizen targeted by the United States in a > foreign country has no constitutional rights?" she asked Brian Hauck, a > deputy assistant attorney general. "How broadly are you asserting the > right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the > limit to this?" > > She provided her own answer: "The limit is the courthouse door." > > The case comes to court at a time when both the legality and wisdom of > the administration's use of targeted killing as a counterterrorism > measure have come under question in Congress and among the public. The > debate, including the first public discussions of drone strikes by > Congress and a major speech by President Obama on May 23, has raised the > possibility of a role for judges in approving the addition of Americans > to the so-called kill list of suspected terrorists or in signing off on > strikes. > > Mr. Hauck acknowledged that Americans targeted overseas do have rights, > but he said they could not be enforced in court either before or after > the Americans were killed. Judges, he suggested, have neither the > expertise nor the tools necessary to assess the danger posed by > terrorists, the feasibility of capturing them or when and how they > should be killed. > > "Courts don't have the apparatus to analyze" such issues, so they must > be left to the executive branch, with oversight by Congress, Mr. Hauck > said. But he argued, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has in the > past, that there are multiple "checks" inside the executive branch to > make sure such killings are legally justified. > > Judge Collyer did not buy it. "No, no, no," she said. "The executive is > not an effective check on the executive." She bridled at the notion that > judges were incapable of properly assessing complex national security > issues, declaring, "You'd be surprised at the amount of understanding > other parts of the government think judges have." > > Despite Judge Collyer's evident frustration with parts of the Obama > administration's stance, legal experts say the plaintiffs face an uphill > battle. They are Nasser al-Awlaki, father and grandfather of two of the > men killed, who wrote about their deaths on Wednesday in The New York > Times, and Sarah Khan, mother of Samir Khan. Only Anwar al-Awlaki was > deliberately targeted, officials say; Mr. Khan was killed in the same > strike, while Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed by mistake in a strike > officials say was intended for a suspected terrorist who turned out not > to be present. > > The relatives filed suit late last year, but not against the military > and the Central Intelligence Agency, which carried out the strikes, > because such lawsuits usually fail on technical grounds. Instead, they > sued four officials in charge of the agencies at the time: David H. > Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director; Leon E. Panetta, the former > defense secretary; and two successive heads of the Joint Special > Operations Command, Adm. William H. McRaven and Lt. Gen. Joseph L. > Votel. > > The lawsuit is known as a Bivens action, after a 1971 Supreme Court > ruling that permitted citizens to sue government officials personally > under some circumstances for violating their constitutional rights. > > The government is asking that the lawsuit be dismissed on several > grounds. Mr. Hauck said decisions about targeted killing should be > reserved to the "political" branches of government, the executive and > legislative, not the judiciary. In addition, he said, allowing a lawsuit > against top national security officials to proceed would set a dangerous > and disruptive precedent. > > "We don't want these counterterrorism officials distracted by the threat > of litigation," he said. > > Pardiss Kebriaei of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Hina Shamsi > of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, > argued that the claims had extraordinary importance because they > involved the deaths of Americans at the government's hands. "The entire > goal of Bivens is deterrence," to discourage officials from infringing > the rights of Americans, Ms. Shamsi said. > > "The court still has a role to play in adjudicating whether or not a > citizen's rights have been violated," she said. > > At one point, when Mr. Hauck referred to the Constitution, Judge > Collyer, 67, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and also > serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, interrupted to > note that the Constitution prescribed three branches of government, and > that she represented one of them. > > "The one that's normally yelled at and not given any money," she said, > sounding as if she was not entirely joking. "The most important thing > about the United States is that it's a nation of laws." > > The judge said that she believed the case raised difficult questions and > that she would "do a lot of reading and studying and thinking and try to > reach a decision as soon as I can." > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
