Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 03/17/2010 View Tue 03/16/2010 View Mon 03/15/2010 View Sat 03/13/2010 View Fri 03/12/2010 View Thu 03/11/2010 View Wed 03/10/2010
1
2010-03-17 Fifth Column
ACLU sues gov't over drones
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tu3031 2010-03-17 12:11|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ]  Top

#1 Where was the ACLU during WWII ? [sarc]

we are at war

our freedom is at stake
Posted by Mike Hunt 2010-03-17 12:39||   2010-03-17 12:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Unless someone badly misinterprets the rules on FOIA, this is just for the headlines. None of what they asked for is releasable.
Posted by rwv 2010-03-17 12:59||   2010-03-17 12:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Jameel Jaffer seems to be one of them, not us. Of course, the ACLU is going along with it . . . .

Kinda makes me wish we could push all those on the wrong side of this equation into a parallel universe so they can enjoy the consequences of their clulessness.
Posted by gorb 2010-03-17 13:01||   2010-03-17 13:01|| Front Page Top

#4 I think the ACLU is worried that one day, maybe the US will wake up and realize that it is also one of its enemies and we'll send a hellfire up their bollocks. They want the target list first so they can change location before the strike.
Posted by DarthVader 2010-03-17 13:07||   2010-03-17 13:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Since they live in caves, I thought they were on the list for the flamethrower squad?
Posted by Silentbrick 2010-03-17 13:13||   2010-03-17 13:13|| Front Page Top

#6 The ACLU is not pro-peace, it is pro-terrorist.
Posted by Steve White 2010-03-17 13:28||   2010-03-17 13:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Someone needs to sue the ACLU for their desires to put our troops in danger.
Posted by 49 Pan 2010-03-17 13:33||   2010-03-17 13:33|| Front Page Top

#8 When they start hitting targets in Boise or Boca Raton...come and see me.
Posted by tu3031 2010-03-17 13:40||   2010-03-17 13:40|| Front Page Top

#9 ALL members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are aware that they are engaged in violent acts against the United States and are subject to detention and arrest if apprehended. Applicable common law and various statutes endorse the doctrine that force may be used against such persons without further warning if apprehension is impossible or if such warning would present an unreasonable danger of evasion or violent resistance.

Just to make sure, I hereby place all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban currently resident in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia under citizen’s arrest for murder and sabotage, and for aiding and abetting murder and sabotage, acts I have actually witnessed or of which I have direct knowledge as prescribed by the common law and the statutes of the State of Texas, of which I am a legal resident.

Come out with your hands up or we’ll shoot.

Now, bugger off, ACLU.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2010-03-17 13:45||   2010-03-17 13:45|| Front Page Top

#10 This is obviously based on the common belief among lefties that we need a legally correct law enforcement approach rather than military force for the struggle against terrorism.
Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden is still at large, but could the ACLU’s non-military, due-process approach really work? Perhaps they would like to show up the Pentagon by trying it themselves:

ACLU Babe (peering into cave): “Come out, Mr. Bin Laden, I have a suitcase full of arrest warrants for you.”

Osama: “Be gone, impudent strumpet of the Great Satan!”

ACLU Babe : “Well! There’s no reason to talk like a Republican. It’s to your advantage to stand trial, you know. You could explain how your impoverished childhood and Bush’s Imperialist Foreign Policy caused the revolt on September 11th. Our top historian, Oliver Stone, says so.“

Osama: (Mumbling) “Impoverished? Revolt? Buwaaahaahaa!” (shouting again) “Silence, brazen female without veil. You should be stoned.”

ACLU Babe: “Stoned? Thanks, but this is no time for an office party, and your chauvinism is Republica—, er, repugnant. Please, we can help! Media interns, er, peace activists, have ordered a million ‘Free Osama’ tee shirts. Saddam Hussein’s personal lawyer, Ramsey Clark, might help with your defense.”

Osama: ”Clark? Phooey! His clients keep getting bombed or hanged. Not want Saddam’s lawyer anyway! Saddam was blasphemer and communist!”

ACLU Babe: “Commu-—? Accchhh! That’s McCarthyism! First sexism, and now this! The horror! You belong in prison after all! Come out now, you red-baiting sexist beast!”

Osama: “Enough of your insolence, hippie harridan!”

(We leave the scene as 200 armed terrorists swarm out of the cave.)
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2010-03-17 14:09||   2010-03-17 14:09|| Front Page Top

#11 Maybe she could shoot him on sight? Eric Holder sez it's okay...
Posted by tu3031 2010-03-17 14:46||   2010-03-17 14:46|| Front Page Top

#12 they should've renamed this article "drones going after drones."

f*ck the ACLU.
Posted by Broadhead6 2010-03-17 15:12||   2010-03-17 15:12|| Front Page Top

#13 American Civil Liberties Union

-their name is one of the biggest oxymorons on the planet.
Posted by Broadhead6 2010-03-17 15:18||   2010-03-17 15:18|| Front Page Top

#14 Wisdom? Policy? Moral questions? The ACLU seems to be suffering from the delusion that they're an unofficial third house of Congress, and confused FoA filings for congressional subpoenas.
Posted by Mitch H.  2010-03-17 15:23|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/  2010-03-17 15:23|| Front Page Top

#15 when is the ACLU gonna be put on the terrorist list?
Posted by chris 2010-03-17 16:43||   2010-03-17 16:43|| Front Page Top

#16 Let's be clear: what the ACLU wants are operational documents about the conduct of war. No court in our country can authorize the release of such documents.

Article II of the Constitution leaves war-making to the President. Article I leaves the decision to go to war, and funding for the war, to the Congress. Article III says not one word whatsoever about a role for the courts in the conduct of war. The FoIA does not give people the 'right' to demand documents concerning war-making operations.

Those documents are secret for a reason: we don't wish to tell our enemies what we're doing, or how we're doing it, or what we plan to do tomorrow.

If the ACLU can't trust the 'wisdom and legality' of how the current administration makes war, they can vote for someone else in 2012.
Posted by Steve White 2010-03-17 17:03||   2010-03-17 17:03|| Front Page Top

#17 This world is getting nuttier by the minute...
Posted by abu Chuck al Ameriki 2010-03-17 17:04||   2010-03-17 17:04|| Front Page Top

#18 Why doesn't the Amerikan Communist Liberal Union just ask Eric Holder for the docs the next time they meet for lunch?
Posted by airandee 2010-03-17 18:48||   2010-03-17 18:48|| Front Page Top

#19 The ACLU drones on. Definitions of a drone:

1. A male bee that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. 2. An idle person who lives off others; a loafer. 3. A person who does tedious or menial work; a drudge:
Posted by JohnQC 2010-03-17 19:45||   2010-03-17 19:45|| Front Page Top

#20 ACLU sues gov't over drones

Is it April 1st?
Posted by lex 2010-03-17 21:46||   2010-03-17 21:46|| Front Page Top

#21 Ya wish it was, but it isn't. Especially when they get Barry and the boys to cave...

NEW YORK – According to news reports today, State Department official Harold Koh stated that the Obama administration has considered legal objections to its predator drone program and suggested that the administration would release a detailed legal justification for the controversial program at an undetermined date.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Tuesday against the State Department and other agencies demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

“We welcome reports that the Obama administration is seriously considering the legality of the drone program, and are encouraged to hear that the rationale behind the program may be made public. We urge the State Department and other agencies to quickly disclose their positions, including on the program’s legal justification and the limits on where and against whom drones can be used. We also urge the administration to disclose other basic facts about the program, including information about the program’s oversight and the number of civilians that have been killed in drone strikes. The use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated legal, moral and policy issues, and the public needs this kind of information in order to engage meaningfully in the debate over these questions.”
Posted by tu3031 2010-03-17 22:06||   2010-03-17 22:06|| Front Page Top

#22 would the ACLU sue if I told them too suck it
Posted by chris 2010-03-17 23:23||   2010-03-17 23:23|| Front Page Top

01:06 tipper
00:01 JosephMendiola
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:40  abu do you love
23:38 Redneck Jim
23:37 Redneck Jim
23:36 49 Pan
23:32 swksvolFF
23:25 chris
23:23 chris
23:22 49 Pan
23:17 gorb
23:14 gorb
23:14 49 Pan
23:12 gorb
23:05 CrazyFool
23:01 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, Alaska
22:51 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, Alaska
22:50 trailing wife
22:49 Old Patriot
22:43 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com