Newly-elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi shocked the Obama administration with a call for the release of the release of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Although the Obama administration has been a bit more forthcoming lately in its admission of its policy of using drones to kill enemies by remote control, there is still an official reluctance to let too much information reach the public.

In the last year or so, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a group of reporters have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petitions requesting that the federal government provide greater access to operational details of the drone program and the legal arguments forwarded by the Obama administration in justifying not only the use of the drones, but their use in the killing of thousands in Pakistan alone.

The 22-year-old Saudi “student” who landed in the United States with a visa to study and a dream to murder Americans was convicted in court of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, the FBI said.  Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari could get life in prison for hatching the plot.

 

 Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two U.S. Attorneys to investigate the alleged “leaks” of classified information many suspect originated in the White House, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence is piling on by announcing that all intelligence agents and officials may be subjected to polygraph testing if they are suspected of leaking information to the media.

Many Americans are justifiably anxious about drone use by the federal government against the American people, but the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations says that concerns about our privacy are overblown.“While many are understandably anxious about the seemingly inevitable expansion of drones a cross the United States, I argue that many fears are either overblown or based on misperceptions,” wrote Micah Zenko on the Council on Foreign Relations website June 21.

 After overcoming an attempted sandbagging by members of the Republican leadership, at about nine o’clock Tuesday night, the House of Representatives of Rhode Island overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals of cases against the U.S. government filed by seven different detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.  By refusing to hear the cases, the decisions of the lower courts are upheld. In one of these rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that information provided by the government should be afforded a “presumption of accuracy” unless the defendant can establish otherwise.

 Late last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appointed two U.S. attorneys to investigate the alleged “leaks” of classified information many suspect originated in the White House. The attorneys will conduct a separate but concurrent investigation with the one presently being pursued by the FBI.

Lest there was any lingering doubt, the federal judge who enjoined enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) told the Obama Administration that it may not legally detain an American indefinitely based on a suspicion of support of terrorism unless the government can demonstrate a connection to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a memorandum clarifying her ruling from May 16, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York reaffirmed her earlier opinion stating plainly that her earlier order stands and that the objections raised by the government in its request for a reconsideration were not valid.

Last week, several major news outlets reported on a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) released by the White House regarding the Fiscal Year 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in which President Obama gives 32 reasons why he is likely to veto the newest iteration of the NDAA.

The headlines announcing the President’s promise to reject the NDAA are identical to those published early last December, just a couple of weeks before the President took time off from his Hawaiian vacation to sign the measure into law. Somehow, President Obama was able to set aside his issues with the act and grant himself the power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial.

JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed