Reply With Quote
I wonder if they will do anything to protect "America's Sheriff," who has a bounty on his head by Mexican drug lords.
The ACLU is trying to fight it.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/b...0/08/03/awlaki
On July 16 -- roughly two weeks after Awlaki's father retained the ACLU and CCR to file suit -- the Treasury Department slapped that label on Awlaki. That action would have made it a criminal offense for those organizations to file suit on behalf of Awlaki or otherwise provide legal representation to him without express permission from the U.S. Government. On July 23, the two groups submitted a request for such a license with the Treasury Department, and when doing so, conveyed the extreme time-urgency involved: namely, that there is an ongoing governmental effort to kill Awlaki and any delay in granting this "license" could cause him to be killed without these claims being heard by a court. Despite that, the Treasury Department failed even to respond to the request.It looks like the government has granted the ACLU the right to sue, but should they even have to go through the executive branch for permission?The Awlaki lawsuit, if it can proceed, will likely face serious obstacles, beginning with the same warped tactic which both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly invoked to shield illegal surveillance and torture from judicial scrutiny: first, refuse to confirm whether such a program exists (notwithstanding public admissions that it does) on the ground such matters are "state secrets," and then, with Kafkaesque perfection, insist that the lawsuit must be dismissed because (thanks to the Government's refusal to acknowledge it) there is no evidence that Awlaki is subject to such an assassination program and thus lacks "standing" to sue.
I wonder if they will do anything to protect "America's Sheriff," who has a bounty on his head by Mexican drug lords.
So much for the Cons ution, the government will decide if you are a one hundred percent American or a non-citizen and possibly worthy of death.
And I note the ostensible libertarian is cheering this on.
Why would Feds protect Sheriff Joe? That would be socialism. Sheriff Joe and his blackshirts can fend for themselves.
What does that have to do with the article posted?
Are you saying you support the government declaring Americans citizens as targetable for assassination?
Of course. Because obviously the Cons ution doesn't apply when the government can declare someone a terrorist and mark that individual for execution. Or, since there is a right to a speedy trial, the guvmint has provided him with the speediest possible one.
What about the idea that lawyers can't legally represent a certain class of citizen without explicit permission? Do you think that's Cons utional?
Are you with us or against us?
No. I'm just pointing out he also has a price on his head.
Not by his own government. I don't think the ACLU suing mexican drug lords will really do anything.
Shouldn't they if they are true about representing Americans?
Or are they just an anti-American group?
What are they going to do? Take the drug lords to court? How could they possibly represent him?
Your mild disapproval of American citizens being targeted by our government says volumes, WC.
As soon as the drug lords take away his civil liberties while in the employ of the US/State/Local government I would say the ACLU will step in and sue.
Unfortunately for your assertion, the ACLU is not a paramilitary organization with a vigilante streak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
