Judge ‘Troubled’ by DOJ Position in Drone Strike Case
The government argued the court should dismiss a lawsuit brought by the families of American citizens killed in Yemen in 2011 by targeted missile strikes. Justice Department lawyers argued the court was barred from hearing a case that would require an assessment of sensitive military and political issues far outside its purview and ability to review.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer repeatedly expressed concern that the government’s position would essentially strip U.S. citizens abroad of their constitutional rights. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck argued there was a difference between having a constitutional right—which he said could be protected by the executive and legislative branches—and being able to make constitutional claims in court.
I am appalled.
The government’s argument here is basically “you have whatever constitutional rights we decide you get to keep.” Given the administration’s history of dodgy answers to the “would you strike at US citizens on US soil” question, that statement can’t even be qualified with “when overseas.”
Lets be clear here: all the evidence points to Anwar Al-Aulaqi being a very bad man, and for all I know the two kids with him were to. But all I know is what the administration has agreed to talk about *after* they blew them all up.
The US “War on Terror” has become an exercise in terror, killing people we don’t like without warning, without due process, without an imminent threat.
We have to be better than our enemies. Otherwise, what’s the fucking point?
