HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NY Times Loses Bid to Unc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 04:58 PM

NY Times Loses Bid to Uncover Details on Drone Strikes

Source: Reuters

NY Times loses bid to uncover details on drone strikes

NEW YORK | Wed Jan 2, 2013 4:39pm EST

By Jonathan Stempel and Jennifer Saba

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday rejected The New York Times' bid to force the U.S. government to disclose more information about its targeted killing of people, including American citizens, who it believes have ties to terrorism.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan said the Obama administration did not violate the law by refusing the Times' request for the legal justifications for targeted killings, a strategy the Times said was first contemplated by the Bush administration soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

McMahon appeared reluctant to rule as she did, noting in her decision that disclosure could help the public 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."

Nonetheless, she said the government was not obligated to turn over materials the Times had sought under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), even though it had such materials in its possession. "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me," McMahon said in her 68-page decision.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9010OV20130102

18 replies, 2441 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply NY Times Loses Bid to Uncover Details on Drone Strikes (Original post)
Hissyspit Jan 2013 OP
Tempest Jan 2013 #1
Demeter Jan 2013 #2
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #6
Octafish Jan 2013 #3
truedelphi Jan 2013 #4
Wilms Jan 2013 #11
truedelphi Jan 2013 #16
Wilms Jan 2013 #18
truedelphi Jan 2013 #5
Solly Mack Jan 2013 #7
DeSwiss Jan 2013 #8
ReRe Jan 2013 #9
blackspade Jan 2013 #10
happyslug Jan 2013 #12
blackspade Jan 2013 #15
msanthrope Jan 2013 #13
happyslug Jan 2013 #14
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #17

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 05:04 PM

1. I read somewhere earlier someone was already doing this

They were posting details about all the drone attacks over the last 5 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 05:05 PM

2. Well, it's lost on me

but then, I never expected to grow up in a rogue regime.

Thank Assange for Wikileaks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:50 PM

6. Where have you been? Our country has a history of saying one thing and doing another just like

almost every other country in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 05:09 PM

3. Ask not for whom the drone toils.

It toils for Them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:04 PM

4. When you google to find out the number of "Exhibitions" and "Conventions" that are held

For the purpose of connecting drone builders and weaponry suppliers, with the Defense Contractors -- it really hurts a person's head.

Drones are yet another way to increase profits for the military-Congressional-Industrial complex. And already those drones are being employed against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:38 PM

11. "Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:15 PM

16. Wilms, i wish I could say it is my patented expression but

Apparently back when Eisenhower coined the "Military Industrial Complex" expression, his first draft of that speech had spelled it out as Military-Congrssional-Industrial Complex."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:23 PM

18. Wow.

When I first read it I thought he'd approve!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:05 PM

5. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:51 PM

7. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 07:30 PM

8. When exactly was it that the judges gave up on justice? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 07:52 PM

9. In other words...

...the NY Times ASKS the USG if it can report on something? Why didn't they publish and then deal with the USG? What's worse than censorship? Pre-Censorship! This is not freedom of the press, folks. 68 fucking page decision??? Well, she really racked her brain, didn't she. All that and freedom of the press just flew over her head? Yip, we're a rogue nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:16 PM

10. Had no legal authority?

Then what the fuck does she have the authority to make rulings about?
Why does she have her job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:50 PM

12. If there is NO WRITTEN STATUTE that permits her to make a ruling, she can NOT.

The New York Times is trying to expand the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but unless the request for information is permitted under the Act, the Judge can NOT order the information to be released. Basically the Judge ruled, that under the Freedom of Information Act, this is a privilege communication and does NOT have to be released.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 09:54 PM

15. While I appreciate the insight...

THERE IS NO NEED TO YELL. I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET THE GIST OF YOUR POST WITHOUT IT.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:54 PM

13. You already posted a news story in LBN on this issue....why the double posting? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:57 PM

14. The Actual opinion, if you want to read it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:27 PM

17. kick nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread