Federal Judge Sides With Obama Killing Innocent People In Drone Strikes

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled in favor of the Obama administration after the New York Times had sued the Department of Justice and other federal entities for more information and legal justification for the President’s drone strike policy. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon all but agreed that it was important for Americans to know why the Obama administration feels justified in killing so many people overseas on mere suspicion of being tied to terrorist organizations and without evidence, charges or due process. In her opinion, she stated that disclosing such information would help Americans understand the "vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty." Reuters explained briefly the problematic nature of these targeted killings:

 “Civil liberties groups have attacked the drone program, which deploys pilotless aircraft, as in effect a green light for the government to kill Americans without constitutionally required due process. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has rejected that contention.“

 Nevertheless, McMahon still decided that the Obama administration doesn’t need to give up any information as to how it justifies killing suspected terrorists at the expense of also killing hundreds of civilians, including men, women and children who are not connected to any terrorist organization.

Just a couple days ago, the same day this federal judge ruled in favor of the Obama administration, a U.S. drone strike killed a “key Pakistan Taliban commander” named Maulvi Nazir Wazir. He, his deputy and 8 others were killed in Northwest Pakistan near the Afghan-Pakistan border. People in this region of Pakistan live in fear of being killed by drone strikes because they happen so frequently. Many residents mourned the death of Nazir but were afraid to attend his funeral because of the risk of another drone strike. Drone operators target large groups of people, sometimes at weddings and funerals because they suspect them to be terrorist groups. This is why so many innocent people have been killed.

One drone operator even quit his job because he couldn’t handle the possibility that he was killing innocent people. He was just following orders. But when he realized he had killed a child, that was the last straw. The Daily Mail recounted his story:

 “The hut had a shed used to hold goats, and when he received the order to fire, he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact. 'These moments are like in slow motion,' he said. As the countdown reached seven seconds, there was no sign of anyone on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. But when it was down to three seconds, a child suddenly walked around the corner. The next thing he saw was a flash on the screen - the explosion. The building collapsed, and the child disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach. 'Did we just kill a kid?' he asked the pilot next to him. 'Yeah, I guess that was a kid,' the man replied.”

 More children have been killed by Obama-authorized drone strikes than were killed in Sandy Hook. But Obama doesn’t have to answer to that if it makes him feel uncomfortable. He’ll pretend to cry over the deaths of children who died at the hands of an allegedly crazy kid, but when deaths are the result of a calculated government policy, that’s different. No need to get emotional over that. It’s OK to kill when you’re the government.


  • Mudpuppy

    Show me a war where innocent non-combatants (including children) weren't killed. You can't. Remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden? It's war. As far as I'm concerned, when Muslims are involved, there are no innocents. What do "evidence, charges or due process" have to do with war? What, we now fight wars as lawyers? As far as any "Americans" being killed, that is poppycock. Those were Muslim terrorists, NOT "Americans." They deserve to die. The judge was right in this instance. Let them live in fear of what the US might do. Turnabout is fair play. Until we can extricate ourselves from those Islamic shiite-holes (which we need to do ASAP), let the drone strikes continue. I really hate to say it, but I actually agree with the administration on this one (on the surface anyway). I would rather use the drones than send our troops in to a situation where the might be killed. Those scum are not worth it.

  • Observer

    Where are the "Not in Our Name" folks now?

  • Golden Bear

    When he comes for the guns , he will bring in the Drones but it will take a while to get the X Military, snipers.

  • Tinman

    Since Muslims claim to love death, and the greatest desire is to die in Jihad, my view is that Muslims are probably secretly celebrating while they protest the drone strikes. They can't have it both ways. No one should protest over Muslims getting what they want: an early meeting with Allah, and the great Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be upon him!). So, if Americans, who have converted to Islam are hit by drone strikes there is no harm, no foul because they understand that they will immediately go to Paradise, get their 72 virgins and have eternal happiness. Any view to the contrary is profoundly disrespectful of Muslim beliefs! Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could kill them by the tens of thousands? Then they wouldn't have to go through the pointless motions of living a productive life.

    • Mudpuppy

      Show me a Muslim who has led a productive life. They exist only to be destructive, that is ultimately their only production. Oh, yes. It would indeed be wonderful to send them all to their virgins. I don't think they know those virgins are male goats.

      I saw a cartoon awhile back. It shows two muzzies in Satan's hand with flames all around. One muzzie is oblivious to it and is rejoicing that he is about to get his virgins. The other muzzie is tapping him on the shoulder and pointing to the flames.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adrian.vance1 Adrian Vance

    The Empire Strikes Back! This man is out to crash America in revenge for his white mother having abandoned him. Well, so did his black father! What did they know that we do not?

    Come see us at The Two Minute Conservative, http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  • http://www.facebook.com/CSHS.1960 Barry Jones

    Possibly a terrorist suicide bomber in training ? Ya` never know ?

  • CharleyO

    You can blame our government if you want but I have to say the cowardice ignorant muslim extremist enemy hides behind the innocent even their own children. If we didn't take them out we would be having more terrorism than we already have. You would think that innocent bystanders would know if their parents are terrorists and try to run away from home. If you try to skate on thin ice you are going to fall in the drink! We do not need the middle east, neither do we need the terrorist from their who are free right now to infiltrate our borders. America needs to come home and stay here and get our noses out of everyone else s business. We need to put filters on our borders to protect America at home. If a country wants to mistreat their citizens, let those citizens rise up and protect themselves, we will sell them the guns they need but only if they are seeking democracy. I guess we should sweep off our steps here at home first right?

  • http://blog.billsamuel.net/ BillSamuel

    This demonstrates that probably the only way to get change is a revolution. The elections are bought, and the judiciary won't challenge anything to do with American imperialism.

  • Ed

    FLASH - I thought the country is going to Hell on Nov 7th like many people (and I still do), BUT. . . Lets face reality, war is hell, people die, but another FACT is that was is getting more civilized all the time. In WW-II BOTH sides carpet bombed cities full of civilians. Our side just happened to get the BIG BOMB first and while many perished with two of these, many more did NOT - on both sides. Was that not less immoral?

    Today we use smart bombs that destroy one house or a shed next to it and not destroy the building next door, nor the neighborhood or city. Is that not more moral? I do not blame the pilot on the trigger nor the hell-fire missile (or the gun), but rather the terrorist who plies his trade around children and innocent fellow non-travelers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

    Is bammy on someones' kill list? Just wondering.