Posts: 17,303
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Never let a tragic disaster go to waste.
Quote:UK 'to Spend £600m on Spy Drones To Protect Britain From Russian Incursion'
![[Image: spy-drone.jpg?w=720&h=260&l=50&t=40]](http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1389734/spy-drone.jpg?w=720&h=260&l=50&t=40) An MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system (UAS)Northrop Grumman
The UK Ministry of Defence plans to spend more than £600m on drones to patrol Britain's coasts from terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants.
Defence chiefs aim to spend £640m to buy eight new £80m Triton Global Hawks, unmanned spy drones that can keep a 24-hour watch on Britain's coastline from ten miles above ground after becoming concerned about recent Russian incursions into British waters, according to The Sun on Sunday.
The report says ministers are concerned that failing to deploy spy drones is 'encouraging potential enemies'. The drones could also be used to help fight terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration.
The drones carry surveillance equipment that can detect hostile aircraft from 2,000 miles away and are fitted with powerful cameras that can zoom in on pilot's faces.
The investment comes amid savage defence cuts that have seen the Ministry of Defence budget cut by 8% in real terms in the four years since the Comprehensive Spending Review in 201. The cuts mean that 30,000 armed forces personnel will be cut by 2020, reducing the armed forces to 147,000. The cuts will include the reduction of 20,000 Army soldiers, 6,000 Navy officers and 5,000 RAF officers.
The Ministry of Defence has also scrapped plans to purchase a £4bn Nimrod surveillance maritime patrol aircraft in 2010 leaving the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to depend on planes borrowed from the US, Canada and France.
An MOD insider told The Sun on Sunday: "Drones are cheaper to fly and maintain and can remain on target for hours on end. We have no real idea who is entering British waters and what their intentions are."
An MOD spokesperson said in a statement: "We are considering a number of potential capability solutions."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-spend-600m-s...on-1457448
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 3,933
Threads: 472
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
Magda Hassan Wrote:Never let a tragic disaster go to waste.
Quote:UK 'to Spend £600m on Spy Drones To Protect Britain From Russian Incursion'
An MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system (UAS)Northrop Grumman
The UK Ministry of Defence plans to spend more than £600m on drones to patrol Britain's coasts from terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants.
Defence chiefs aim to spend £640m to buy eight new £80m Triton Global Hawks, unmanned spy drones that can keep a 24-hour watch on Britain's coastline from ten miles above ground after becoming concerned about recent Russian incursions into British waters, according to The Sun on Sunday.
The report says ministers are concerned that failing to deploy spy drones is 'encouraging potential enemies'. The drones could also be used to help fight terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration.
The drones carry surveillance equipment that can detect hostile aircraft from 2,000 miles away and are fitted with powerful cameras that can zoom in on pilot's faces.
The investment comes amid savage defence cuts that have seen the Ministry of Defence budget cut by 8% in real terms in the four years since the Comprehensive Spending Review in 201. The cuts mean that 30,000 armed forces personnel will be cut by 2020, reducing the armed forces to 147,000. The cuts will include the reduction of 20,000 Army soldiers, 6,000 Navy officers and 5,000 RAF officers.
The Ministry of Defence has also scrapped plans to purchase a £4bn Nimrod surveillance maritime patrol aircraft in 2010 leaving the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to depend on planes borrowed from the US, Canada and France.
An MOD insider told The Sun on Sunday: "Drones are cheaper to fly and maintain and can remain on target for hours on end. We have no real idea who is entering British waters and what their intentions are."
An MOD spokesperson said in a statement: "We are considering a number of potential capability solutions."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-spend-600m-s...on-1457448
:  hock::::face.palm::
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 16,099
Threads: 1,767
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
![[Image: button-print-gry20.png]](http://cdn.printfriendly.com/button-print-gry20.png)
SynopsisWatch our video about 16-year-old Abdulrahman. On October 14, 2011, he was eating dinner with his teenage cousin at an open-air restaurant when they and five others were killed by a U.S. drone strike.
On July 18, 2012, CCR and the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against senior CIA and military officials challenging their decisions to authorize the "targeted killing" of three United States citizens, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Anwar's sixteen year-old son Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
StatusOn April 4, 2014, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case.
DescriptionIn 2010, after reports that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had been placed on executive "kill lists," CCR and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of his father, Nasser, challenging the government's authorization for his son's killing.
On September 30, 2011, U.S. strikes killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, along with Samir Khan and three others. Two weeks later, the U.S. launched another drone strike at an open-air restaurant in Yemen, killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi's son, Abdulrahman, and six other civilian bystanders, including another teenager. These killings, undertaken without due process, in circumstances where lethal force was not a last resort to address a specific, concrete and imminent threat, and where the government failed to take required measures to protect bystanders, rises to a violation of the most elementary constitutional right afforded to all U.S. citizens deprivation of life without due process of law.
Plaintiffs in the case are Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, and Sarah Khan, the mother of Samir Khan. Defendants are Defense Secretary and former CIA Director Leon C. Panetta, Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command William H. McRaven, Commander of the Joint Special Operations Command Joseph Votel, and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
See CCR's Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta factsheet.
CCR Senior Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei in Brave New Foundation's new video: Legal Showdown: 6 Experts Destroy Obama's Drone Policy
TimelineOn July 18, 2012, CCR and the ACLU filed a federal complaint against Petraeus, Panetta, McRaven, and Votel for the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in violation of their fourth and fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.
On December 14, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' case, and the United States Government filed a Statement of Interest.
On February 4, 2013, a Justice Department white paper was released setting forth the legal justification for the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. CCR issued this statement in response.
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, Defendants filed their reply brief.
On May 22, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in a letter to Congress that the United States killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. That same day, the Court ordered Defendants to state "how, if at all, the acknowledgment by the Attorney General affects the legal issues in this case." On June 5, Defendants filed their response to the Court's May 22, 2013 Order, and on June 11, CCR and the ACLU filed a reply to Defendants' response.
Oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was heard by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2013. Click here for the transcript.
On April 4, 2014, Judge Collyer granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Read the opinion and order.
For more information about CCR's work on targeted killing, visit the case page for our first lawsuit challenging the authorization for Anwar Al-Aulaqi's targeting, as well as the page for our Freedom of Information Act request about the deaths of 41 civilians by a U.S. strike in al-Majalah in December 2009.
See also our testimony with Yemeni human rights organization HOOD and the Swiss-based Alkarama to a Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee for a hearing in April 2013 on the Obama administration's targeted killing program. The submission provides accounts of a sample of five strikes carried out in Yemen in 2012 and 2013 based on unpublished field research, which included visits to the sites of the strikes and interviews with victims. The testimony was also submitted to the Congressional Progressive Caucus for a similar hearing in May 2013.
Attached Files- Legal Documents
- Jul. 18, 2012, Complaint
- Dec. 14, 2012, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- Dec. 14, 2012, United States' Statement of Interest
- Feb. 6, 2013, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Mar. 7, 2013, Defendants' Reply Brief
- June 5, 2013, Defendants' Response to Court's May 22, 2013 Order
- June 11, 2013, Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Court's May 22, 2013 Order
- Transcript of July 19, 2013, Oral Argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- April 4, 2014, Court Opinion Dismissing Case.pdf
- April 4, 2014, Court Order Dismissing Case.pdf
- Other Materials
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Posts: 16,099
Threads: 1,767
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta
http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
Synopsis
Watch our video about 16-year-old Abdulrahman. On October 14, 2011, he was eating dinner with his teenage cousin at an open-air restaurant when they and five others were killed by a U.S. drone strike.
On July 18, 2012, CCR and the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against senior CIA and military officials challenging their decisions to authorize the "targeted killing" of three United States citizens, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Anwar's sixteen year-old son Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
Status
On April 4, 2014, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case.
Description
In 2010, after reports that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had been placed on executive "kill lists," CCR and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of his father, Nasser, challenging the government's authorization for his son's killing.
On September 30, 2011, U.S. strikes killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, along with Samir Khan and three others. Two weeks later, the U.S. launched another drone strike at an open-air restaurant in Yemen, killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi's son, Abdulrahman, and six other civilian bystanders, including another teenager. These killings, undertaken without due process, in circumstances where lethal force was not a last resort to address a specific, concrete and imminent threat, and where the government failed to take required measures to protect bystanders, rises to a violation of the most elementary constitutional right afforded to all U.S. citizens deprivation of life without due process of law.
Plaintiffs in the case are Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, and Sarah Khan, the mother of Samir Khan. Defendants are Defense Secretary and former CIA Director Leon C. Panetta, Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command William H. McRaven, Commander of the Joint Special Operations Command Joseph Votel, and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
See CCR's Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta factsheet.
CCR Senior Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei in Brave New Foundation's new video: Legal Showdown: 6 Experts Destroy Obama's Drone Policy
Timeline
On July 18, 2012, CCR and the ACLU filed a federal complaint against Petraeus, Panetta, McRaven, and Votel for the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in violation of their fourth and fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.
On December 14, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' case, and the United States Government filed a Statement of Interest.
On February 4, 2013, a Justice Department white paper was released setting forth the legal justification for the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. CCR issued this statement in response.
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, Defendants filed their reply brief.
On May 22, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in a letter to Congress that the United States killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. That same day, the Court ordered Defendants to state "how, if at all, the acknowledgment by the Attorney General affects the legal issues in this case." On June 5, Defendants filed their response to the Court's May 22, 2013 Order, and on June 11, CCR and the ACLU filed a reply to Defendants' response.
Oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was heard by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2013. Click here for the transcript.
On April 4, 2014, Judge Collyer granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Read the opinion and order.
For more information about CCR's work on targeted killing, visit the case page for our first lawsuit challenging the authorization for Anwar Al-Aulaqi's targeting, as well as the page for our Freedom of Information Act request about the deaths of 41 civilians by a U.S. strike in al-Majalah in December 2009.
See also our testimony with Yemeni human rights organization HOOD and the Swiss-based Alkarama to a Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee for a hearing in April 2013 on the Obama administration's targeted killing program. The submission provides accounts of a sample of five strikes carried out in Yemen in 2012 and 2013 based on unpublished field research, which included visits to the sites of the strikes and interviews with victims. The testimony was also submitted to the Congressional Progressive Caucus for a similar hearing in May 2013.
Attached Files
- Legal Documents
- Jul. 18, 2012, Complaint
- Dec. 14, 2012, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- Dec. 14, 2012, United States' Statement of Interest
- Feb. 6, 2013, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Mar. 7, 2013, Defendants' Reply Brief
- June 5, 2013, Defendants' Response to Court's May 22, 2013 Order
- June 11, 2013, Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Court's May 22, 2013 Order
- Transcript of July 19, 2013, Oral Argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- April 4, 2014, Court Opinion Dismissing Case.pdf
- April 4, 2014, Court Order Dismissing Case.pdf
- Other Materials
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
|
