President Obama’s efforts to get a federal case against his administration for killing US citizens Anwar Awlaki and his son, Abdulrahman Awlaki thrown out don’t seem to be going to well, with the judge noting she was “troubled” by the administration’s claim to be able to kill citizens at will without court oversight.
Judge Rosemary Collyer appeared incredulous when asking the US Deputy Attorney General, Brian Hauck, if he was seriously suggesting that US citizens targeted by the US government for assassination overseas have “no constitutional rights,” asking how broadly this claim was extended.
Hauck insisted that the citizens theoretically have constitutional rights, but that they can’t be enforced in court before or after they are executed by the president because judges can’t second guess the president on killing people.
Collyer spurned the argument that the executive branch could provide a check on its own killings, nor did she appear impressed by Hauck’s warning that the “threat of litigation” could distract officials from ordering more killings.
Not widely known: The "justification" for killing the Awlakis [ the underwear bomber incident] was a sting, am set up and a false flagged plot!! It was staged!! The entire provenance of the underwear bomber incident was set up and managed by U.S. intelligence operatives and their hirelings. The bomb was "provided" by an asset of the CIA/FBI ……… http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/05/16/wh…
"On the May 7, 2012, edition of World News Tonight With Diane Sawyer, Clarke said:
The U.S. government is saying [the bombing plot] never came close because they had insider information, insider control.
That was new news. The AP story said nothing about an insider, an infiltrator or a double agent.
The May 7 Nightline ran a slightly longer clip of Clarke in which he said:
The U.S. government is saying it never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn’t going to let it happen."
"Clarke had more to say the next morning, on a May 8, 2012, Good Morning America appearance:
You have to wonder if this plot was foiled by someone on the inside, whether or not that means that source is blown, and therefore they no longer have someone on the inside and would not know about the next plot.
And in his May 8, 2012, World News Tonight With Diane Sawyer, appearance, Clarke said:
It’s quite an accomplishment to be able to pass yourself off as an al Qaeda terrorist to the terrorists when, in fact, you’re working for a U.S. or allied intelligence agency."
["working for a U.S. or allied intelligence agency."]??????
"The press advanced the story. The Los Angeles Times (“Al Qaeda bomb plot foiled by double agent,” May 9) claimed that the double agent who handed off the underwear bomb to authorities was working in cooperation with Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency. The New York Times (“Airline Plotter A Double Agent, U.S. Officials Say,” May 9, published on the Web May 8) similarly claimed that the double agent “was actually an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia” and “operated in Yemen with the full knowledge of the CIA but not under its direct supervision, the officials said.”
The Wall Street Journal (“Bomber Plotter Was Informer,” May 9) reported that the double agent answered “to a foreign intelligence service that works in concert with the CIA. Saudi intelligence officials played ‘a large role’ in handling of the double agent inside AQAP, this official said.” Upon convincing al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that he would complete the suicide attack, the double agent was given the bomb. Instead of detonating it, he gave the bomb and new intelligence about the group to intelligence officials."
part-2
Did the bomb provided to the "patsy" came from the CIA?? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/under…
So wait a moment…… [If] "A would-be "underwear bomber" involved in a plot to attack a US-based jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged." ……… Then why did we get the shown trial in Detroit?? ……. Complete with "victims impact" statements…… a guilty plea and the prison sentence on February 16, 2012 to life in prison without the possibility of parole…??? There appears to be some sort of disconnect afoot here …….
The most likely answer seems to be that the "bomber" referred to……. is NOT the actual bomber but the bomb maker who has slipped out of view in the tale our government tells…………….
Now comes the third leg of this set up…………… Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who wore the "bomb" onto the plane had NO PASSPORT!!!! Luckily, We The People had a witness to the key special arrangements and outright manipulations done by un-named persons and Federal Agents to see their sting through to it"s conclusion………. Here "Ourm Wittness", kurt Haskell tells us that story………m
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 1
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 2A
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 2B
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 3A
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 3B
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 4A
Kurt Haskell: Witness to Government False Flag Part 4B
can't find this one…………. You try!!
UNDERWEAR BOMBER KEY WITNESS ATTORNEY KURT HASKELL #4-C -Alex Jones Infowars Nightly News 2012-02-24
"…theoretically have constitutional rights, but that they can’t be enforced in court before or after they are executed by the president because judges can’t second guess the president on killing people."
Right then, the Judge should have had this hack thrown out of the courtroom. There is no "theoretically" about the rights of citizens, unless they take the time and effort to change the Constitution and the BOR. And it's the JOB of the courts to be a check against a rogue President – and/or Congress.
He is actually right. Constitutional rights are not operative when a citizen is on foreign soil, or when a suspension of Habeas or Martial Law is in effect in the US.
Then we are well and truly phugged.
And yet,
that hack argument seems quite similar to the argument used by the 3 NY appeals court judges in the Hedges et al case. The judges essentially ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing unless they could show that arrest was "imminent" or after they were already jailed.
Try proving that you are being secretly spied on, or that a secret arrest order is "imminently" to be given.
Even better, prove it after you are indefinitely detained without charges, and held incommunicado, or even been "renditioned" to some black site or Gitmo.
"Hauck insisted that the citizens theoretically have constitutional rights, but that they can’t be enforced in court before or after they are executed by the president because judges can’t second guess the president on killing people."
How is this different from the Fuhrerprinzip?
"the “threat of litigation” could distract officials from ordering more killings.
And how is this different from an outright admission this administration doesn't want to be bothered by legal niceties– or even more chillingly, the law itself.
Yaa Harry……….. We're a nation of great men now………… They've taken us beyond law…….. to a place of great confidence in the notion of expedience…….."Our ends justify ANY means"