Recently I wrote about the suggestion that people with the title “Judge” should be respected, as supposedly that is an “honorable” title. And I noted, well perhaps that would apply to Judge Napolitano and Judge Katherine Forrest, but most other judges are merely hacks appointed by their fellow cronies or are rubber stamps for the Regime and its crimes against the people.
In my other post I mentioned judges who ruled against the Constitution and in favor of U.S. government assassinations of people not charged with any crimes.
Now we have found another judge who apparently is not only a rubber stamp for the Regime and its war of terror against innocent people but an ignoramus as well. It was yet another decision by a regimist judge deferring to the President as the sole judge, jury and executioner, totally contrary to the principles upon which America was founded. The decision involved a lawsuit against the Obama Administration by the father of alleged terror supporter Anwar al-Awlaki and Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman, who were murdered along with a third person by the Obama CIA drones as part of the Obama Administration’s assassination “kill list.” There were never any actual charges against Awlaki and Obama never presented any actual evidence against him. Awlaki’s son wasn’t even a suspect.
FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed just a year ago by Chief Justice John Roberts, made the bad decision.
In an earlier ruling as a judge on the U.S District Court for District of Columbia, Judge Collyer sided with the CIA in its assertion that its drone-assassination program be kept secret, writing that “The Court has no reason to second-guess the CIA . . .” Hmmm. I thought that the purpose of courts was to — at least to some extent — “second guess” government bureaucrats’ actions and decisions which may in fact be harmful to the liberty and security of the people. Judge Collyer’s decision was then unanimously overturned by the DC Court of Appeals. I guess those judges felt it important to second-guess Judge Collyer who doesn’t believe in second-guessing the CIA.
In this new decision as judge on the FISA Court, Judge Collyer wrote that the lawsuit in question would “impermissibly draw the court into `the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation,'” even though as Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com pointed out, the U.S. government is “not involved in combat in Yemen, where the killings took place…” And furthermore the judge actually did recognize that “Anwar al-Awlaki had been ‘executed without charge, indictment or prosecution’,” according to Firedoglake national security analyst Kevin Gosztola.
As I have mentioned plenty of times now, this Awlaki person may have been an outspoken critic of the U.S. government’s war and occupations of overseas territories. But while the Obama Administration claimed to have evidence against him which would prove accusations of Awlaki conspiring against the U.S., Obama never actually presented any evidence. Awlaki was really murdered based on his public sermons and criticisms of the U.S. government, formerly protected by the First Amendment.
You see, morally and ethically, war or not, if someone is going to accuse someone of something, that accuser must be required to show evidence against the accused. Otherwise, anyone with government power can just publicly accuse someone of anything and act as judge, jury and executioner, just as Obama is doing. As I mentioned here, some of the kinds of people that Obama or his flunkies have asserted to be “terrorists” have included “constitutionalists,” religious Christians, those who believe in individual liberty, preppers and survivalists, and those who are critical of the government’s false war on terrorism. As I have mentioned before, those gullible sheeple who have been gung-ho in supporting all of Bush and Obama’s unconstitutional and reactionary policies since 9/11 may very well some day regret such support.
And speaking of the government’s false war on terrorism and false flags to justify the government’s increasing powers and controls, Judge Collyer mentioned the “Christmas Day attack” which allegedly Anwar al-Awlaki was involved in planning. But there was no “attack,” as the government’s false flag so-called “Underwear Bomber’s” bomb had intentionally been made to be defective, according to a passenger on that plane and the main witness at the “Underwear Bomber” trial. That witness, however, Kurt Haskell, was never called to testify, as the feds managed to get a last-minute plea deal from the alleged bomber. That was because they knew that Haskell’s testimony would have exposed the “sharp-dressed man” who accompanied the alleged bomber and who was probably a U.S. government agent. Here are some of Haskell’s blogs on that, here and here, and another article by Haskell, and the ABC News article he pointed to in which the feds finally had to admit that Haskell’s allegations of government involvement were true. And the reason for a false flag at that time was most likely to reignite terrorism fears to justify the new airport cancer-scanners from which former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and others profited.
But regarding these judges’ rubber-stamping the government’s trampling on due process, Jacob Hornberger recently described military tribunals as “un-American.” Hornberger writes about the recent trial of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law who was convicted of crimes associated with terrorism in a U.S. court, not in a military court. Hornberger compares the differences to Hitler’s Nazi regime, in which Hitler wanted to assure convictions against those that he believed to be terrorists or traitors, and so Hitler concocted his secret courts to do just that.
But here in Amerika, if high government officials feel that your dissent from or criticism of the Regime offends them, they can accuse you of anything they want, call you a “terrorist,” claim to have evidence against your “terrorism” but not be required to present that evidence, and kill you. This is exactly why each and every human being has a right to due process, a right to require any accuser to provide evidence to prove it.