This judge is like the Nazi judges in Germany: everything was ‘legal’ no matter how odious because the rulers and their courts said so! The fascist turn our court system has undergone is obvious at this point. Corporate/oligarch inroads to our election system whereby they can flood an election with paid propaganda has been rapidly destroying our democracy. The ruling by this judge, legalizing drone assassins, is disgusting and eventually drones will be murdering Americans in secret in the US, too.
The judge believes that KILLING people isn’t violating their Constitutional rights: Court: Improper for Judiciary to Decide Whether Killing US Citizens with Drones Violates Due Process Rights | The Dissenter
The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). It questioned the legality of drone strikes, which killed US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year-old son. It was brought on behalf of Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman.
Claims that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated were alleged, however, Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed these claims because “unmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture.”
It was argued that their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated. But, in order to have a claim, government officials had to knowingly and not “merely negligently” kill any of these citizens, according to the judge.
The entire assassin drone thing is illicit, illegal and anti-civil rights. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
Generally speaking, the assassin drone program has zero ‘warrants’ and everything is secret with no one signing the death orders and are concealed from the public and by definition, the ‘persons’ in the 4th Amendment means you can’t slaughter someone in order to fix some political problem. Our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries and were quite aware that they needed these protections so they could do what they did, namely, change the government.
All the Amendments are in simple language. This one is no exception. The government has to go to a judge and get search warrants and then attempt to arrest someone and then take them into a court for trial. The South terrorized people for nearly 200 years by refusing to protect blacks against summary execution based on no evidence, no trials. If a black person was arrested, often the whites would take them out of jail and murder them and nothing would happen. Until the Civil Rights Act was passed, that is. Now we don’t see these sort of lynchings.
Bin Laden wasn’t arrested. No warrants were out, instead, an assassination team was sent in to kill him and much of his family. No trial was held for this would show US/CIA culpability plus Saudi actions on 9/11. Instead, silly stories about bombs in buildings and other ‘explanations’ flourish while the truth is concealed.
This particular judge is very much a Nazi: Rosemary M. Collyer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judge Collyer presided over a number of habeas corpus petitions submitted on behalf of Guantanamo captives.[4]
In September 2011, Collyer authored an opinion accepting the Central Intelligence Agency’s view that for the CIA to acknowledge the fact that it had an interest in the use of drones for targeted killing would pose unacceptable damage to national security.[5] On March 15, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously reversed Judge Collyer’s decision.[6]
She was overruled in that utterly insane, irresponsible handling of the CIA drone case. Our national security has deteriorated horrifically due to the use of assassin drones. The people who wish to destroy our nation are overjoyed we are doing this because the only difference between the four jets being hijacked on 9/11 and assassin drones is…the drones are run by computers! That is the only difference. We basically have said, it is OK to murder masses of people with flying jets and rockets while producing zero justification and no legal framework of any sort.
This is very destructive for our nation, our position in the world and fuels the ‘War on Terror’ since we are the terrorists.
Email:
emeinel@fairpoint.net
MAILING ADDRESS:
EMS NEWS
P.O. BOX 483
BERLIN, NY 12022
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.
Culture of Life News 
These Bush appointed judges are real pieces of work, aren’t they?
I hope somebody somewhere is knitting these names into a shawl or something.
It’s all so clearly controlled by an Illuminati that is Hell bent on exterminating us plebes. She is an evil woman, by all stretches of the imagination. As you have noted, Elaine, a day will come when they suffer a severe backlash for this sort of evil. And I really have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I want this evil to end, and thus welcome the takedown of this criminal behavior. On the other hand, Jews, among others, will be savagely slaughtered, along with anyone who isn’t a “white, Christian, heterosexual”. The “End of Times” folks, who are quite vicious and sanctimonious. Scary times, these. Glad that my days are somewhat numbered, having already lived through 2/3rds of my life (hopefully).
She should get overturned here as well, as least on one issue. She apparently has not read Tennessee v. Garner, which clearly holds that the state killing people is a seizure under Fourth Amendment.
And she cites “risk of interfering with military decisions” as a basis for saying there is no remedy under the law. (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents). The framers were apprehensive of professional military. Plato talks about this problem in “The Republic” as well, which the framers were no doubt familiar with. I am sure they are rolling over with the law of the land being that “risk of interfering with military decisions” is a basis for denying relief for violations of constitutional rights! Huh????????
And the worst part : “Were the Court not able to cobble together enough judicially noticeable facts from various records, it would have denied the motion to dismiss for the sheer fact that the Defendants failed to support the assertion that Bivens. special factors apply”. So the government didn’t even prove its case, so she said, “here, let me help you out with that”. Neutral magistrate indeed!
And the “facts” she took judicial notice of were really just various assertions by the government. She even noted this in the opinion and still used them as a basis to “prove” the government’s case.
Many a right wing judge does that, by the way, so do leftist judges. They make up laws from the bench.