asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis
asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis

asimovisoverrated:

Osamu Tezuka’s Metropolis

(via bewareofmpreg)


Various works by Unagi Kaisen (a.k.a. うなぎ海鮮)

Various works by Unagi Kaisen (a.k.a. うなぎ海鮮)

Various works by Unagi Kaisen (a.k.a. うなぎ海鮮)

Various works by Unagi Kaisen (a.k.a. うなぎ海鮮)

(via kayleyhyde)


We go forward.

Let’s all talk about “Snowpiercer” and how until three days ago I had never heard of one of the best sci-fi/dystopia films to come out in years.
A multi-ethnicity dystopian flick with themes about social oppression? Hello? That’s two hours? Hello? WHERE THE FUCK WAS I?  
We go forward.

Let’s all talk about “Snowpiercer” and how until three days ago I had never heard of one of the best sci-fi/dystopia films to come out in years.
A multi-ethnicity dystopian flick with themes about social oppression? Hello? That’s two hours? Hello? WHERE THE FUCK WAS I?  
We go forward.

Let’s all talk about “Snowpiercer” and how until three days ago I had never heard of one of the best sci-fi/dystopia films to come out in years.
A multi-ethnicity dystopian flick with themes about social oppression? Hello? That’s two hours? Hello? WHERE THE FUCK WAS I? 

We go forward.

Let’s all talk about “Snowpiercer” and how until three days ago I had never heard of one of the best sci-fi/dystopia films to come out in years.

A multi-ethnicity dystopian flick with themes about social oppression? Hello? That’s two hours? Hello? WHERE THE FUCK WAS I? 

leapers:

beruwhitesunlars:

<3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imogen Heap is a treasure. Say what you will about her music but she’s an uncommon talent. This is brilliant. It gave me chills.  

Shame on Thought Catalogue

Alright. So some guy named Mark Saunders recently wrote an article on Thought Catalogue called “18 Things Females Seem to Not Understand(Because, Female Privilege). Now, considering that his bio on the website is “Yuppie living in Denver. Writes about men’s issues.” it’s pretty safe to assume that good ol’ Mark knows jack shit about the issues that effect women today and is instead the kind of troglodyte that scours the internet looking for opportunities to try and pass his misogyny off as something counter-cultural.

While I hate to give the article any more traffic than it deserves (and I’ll just copy over his list onto this post so you don’t have to check it out yourself), I thought it’d be nice to add a few comments, seeing as how Mark seems like the kind of fella who only listens to other men (because, you know, “female privilege.)

Here’s the list, in all it’s ugly glory, with some comments for our friend Mark to think over.

(Note: I am very aware of my position as a man writing this post. I do not intend, in any way, to speak for the women effected by these statistics and living in the world that created them. This is my own personal response to an internet article I find totally abhorrent. I also apologize for any failings in my own logic, here, and am open to feedback about how to refine my thoughts on this issue. ) 

1. Female privilege is being able to walk down the street at night without people crossing the street because they’re automatically afraid of you.

Yes, Mark, because there couldn’t be anything worse than people walking on the other side of the street. Except for, maybe, having to walk home every night in fear that the man walking towards you will brutally attack you. Never mind that 35% of women worldwide have reported experiencing violence by a partner or non-partner. Or that somewhere in America a woman is battered every fifteen seconds. 
Must be tough having someone cross the street, though. 

2. Female privilege is being able to approach someone and ask them out without being labeled “creepy.”

I don’t know how you’re approaching people, Mark, but if it’s being labeled as “creepy”, you might want to reconsider your tactics. 

3. Female privilege is being able to get drunk and have sex without being considered a rapist. Female privilege is being able to engage in the same action as another person but be considered the innocent party by default.

Never mind that, according to The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, somewhere between 1 and 4 or 1 and 5 women experience attempted or completed rape during their college years.

That’s compared to 3% for men, just so you know. 

Oh, and are you really sure that they’re considered the “innocent” party? I think a brief look at the way our media blames women for their own sexual assault should cure you of some of those beliefs. 

4. Female privilege is being able to turn on the TV and see yourself represented in a positive way. Female privilege is shows like King of Queensand Everybody Loves Raymond where women are portrayed as attractive, competent people while men are shown as ugly, lazy slobs.

Just to be clear, mark, those representation are usually made by men, not women. Because only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female.

5. Female privilege is the idea that women and children should be the first rescued from any sort of emergency situation. Female privilege is saving yourself before you save others and not being viewed as a monster.

And male privilege is taking a complex and problematic social norm and diminishing it to a trite fact with no explanation and still getting it published on a popular website. 

6. Female privilege is being able to decide not to have a child.

I don’t know if you’re aware, Mark, but the baby actually grows inside the female body. I imagine that means she should have a say in what she does with it. (Also: see above)

7. Female privilege is not having to support a child financially for 18 years when you didn’t want to have it in the first place.

Out of 12.2 million single parent families in 2012, more than 80% were headed by single mothers.

8. Female privilege is never being told to “take it like a man” or “man up.”

That’s not female privilege, mark, that’s the patriarchy negatively effecting men and enforcing disgusting and harmful ideologies on themselves. This was not a concept created by women, Mark, and the sooner we stop believing in bullshit concepts like “female privilege” the sooner we can get rid of harmful ideas like “being a man.”  

9. Female privilege is knowing that people would take it as a gravely serious issue if someone raped you. Female privilege is being able to laugh at a “prison rape” joke.

No one should laugh at rape jokes, Mark. No one. 

10. Female privilege is being able to divorce your spouse when your marriage is no longer working because you know you will most likely be granted custody of your children.

In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed — on their own — that the mother should receive custody. That isn’t a privilege. That’s a decision. 

11. Female privilege is being able to call the police in a domestic dispute knowing they will take your side. Female privilege is not having your gender work against where police are involved.

Do you think that has something to do with the fact that A University of Pennsylvania research study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to low-income, inner-city Philadelphia women between the ages of 15 to 44 - more common than automobile accidents, mugging and rapes combined?

12. Female privilege is being able to be caring or empathetic without people being surprised.

See 8. 

13. Female privilege is not having to take your career seriously because you can depend on marrying someone who makes more money than you do. Female privilege is being able to be a “stay at home mom” and not seem like a loser.

That is not a privilege, mark, that’s an enforced policy. 

As of January 15, 2014 there are 23 female CEOs in the Fortune 500, 46 in the 1000, for a total of 4.6% in both the 500 and 1000.


Also, see 8. 

14. Female privilege is being able to cry your way out of a speeding ticket.

I can see you’re really running out of ideas, here, Mark.

15. Female privilege is being favored by teachers in elementary, middle and high school. Female privilege is graduating high school more often, being accepted to more colleges, and generally being encouraged and supported along the way.

Or, you know, that’s women working hard against a system innately stacked against them and succeeding. After, you know, a couple hundred years of not even being allowed to attend school.

16. Female privilege being able to have an opinion without someone tell you you’re just “a butthurt fedora-wearing neckbeard who can’t get any.”

Mark, complaining about your personal problems and projecting them as a “privilege” of half the population is very, very flimsy logic. And if we’re talking from personal experience here, I can gladly say that the only people who ever used “not getting any” as an insult against me where other men. 

17. Female privilege is being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving.

See 16. If someone thinks you’re self-serving for talking about sexism, it’s probably because that’s exactly what you’re being.

18. Female privilege is arrogantly believing that sexism only applies to women.

Sexism only applies to women, Mark. It applies to them in very diverse, complex ways. And it hurts us all, particularly when it manifests in ill-considered articles like this. TC mark

black-australia:

lost-soul-in-paradise:

call-of-cthulhu:

sinidentidades:

 Australia’s history of racism towards Aboriginals is absolutely disgusting. 

Until the mid-60s, indigenous Australians came under the Flora And Fauna Act, which classified them as animals, not human beings. This also meant that killing an indigenous Australian meant you weren’t killing a human being, but an animal.
To this day, Australia breaks every code of the Geneva Convention when it comes to indigenous Australians and their human rights. The “public housing” that the government has given them are one-bedroom shacks with no running water, no electricity and no gas, that entire families are forced to live in. These shacks are in communities in the outback, as far away from “civilised” society as possible. Out of sight, out of mind.
Indigenous Australians that live in the city are commonly forced to live in very dangerous and derelict areas that the government gives very little funding towards. Redfern in Sydney is a highly indigenous Australian populated suburb that is rife with crime, unemployment and horrendous living conditions. The government does next to nothing to help these people, either.
Whenever riots have broken out as a result of incredibly low morale, the police and the government are very quick to point all the blame at the indigenous Australians and say that they are the cause of their own problems, rather than looking at what the actual cause is.
Unemployment rates amongst indigenous Australians is astronomical. Crime rates are astronomical. Suicide rates are extremely high within the indigenous Australian community. Death from inadequate living conditions and inadequate health care is common. Brutality towards indigenous Australians is common.
The way many indigenous Australians are forced to live is equivalent to that of what one would expect from a third-world country. Indigenous Australians are considered by the UN to be one of the most horrendously marginalised groups in the world.
And how does the government amend all of this? With a national “Sorry Day”, where white people plant a hand in some designated area of soil as a token of their white guilt, and then continue going about their white privileged day. 
On top of that, white people here commonly bitch and complain about how “good” indigenous Australians have it and how “thankful” they ought to be to the white man for improving their quality of life. Meanwhile, indigenous Australians have lost almost all sense of identity and culture because of white colonisation.
What is left of Aboriginal identity and culture has been nearly completely destroyed. And most people in this disgustingly privileged country do not give a single god damn fuck.
Australia is a disgusting country when it comes to racism. I am disgusted by my own country.

:(

Reblogging this again because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples seriously do not get enough coverage in the world media and it is much the same even in Australia. 
black-australia:

lost-soul-in-paradise:

call-of-cthulhu:

sinidentidades:

 Australia’s history of racism towards Aboriginals is absolutely disgusting. 

Until the mid-60s, indigenous Australians came under the Flora And Fauna Act, which classified them as animals, not human beings. This also meant that killing an indigenous Australian meant you weren’t killing a human being, but an animal.
To this day, Australia breaks every code of the Geneva Convention when it comes to indigenous Australians and their human rights. The “public housing” that the government has given them are one-bedroom shacks with no running water, no electricity and no gas, that entire families are forced to live in. These shacks are in communities in the outback, as far away from “civilised” society as possible. Out of sight, out of mind.
Indigenous Australians that live in the city are commonly forced to live in very dangerous and derelict areas that the government gives very little funding towards. Redfern in Sydney is a highly indigenous Australian populated suburb that is rife with crime, unemployment and horrendous living conditions. The government does next to nothing to help these people, either.
Whenever riots have broken out as a result of incredibly low morale, the police and the government are very quick to point all the blame at the indigenous Australians and say that they are the cause of their own problems, rather than looking at what the actual cause is.
Unemployment rates amongst indigenous Australians is astronomical. Crime rates are astronomical. Suicide rates are extremely high within the indigenous Australian community. Death from inadequate living conditions and inadequate health care is common. Brutality towards indigenous Australians is common.
The way many indigenous Australians are forced to live is equivalent to that of what one would expect from a third-world country. Indigenous Australians are considered by the UN to be one of the most horrendously marginalised groups in the world.
And how does the government amend all of this? With a national “Sorry Day”, where white people plant a hand in some designated area of soil as a token of their white guilt, and then continue going about their white privileged day. 
On top of that, white people here commonly bitch and complain about how “good” indigenous Australians have it and how “thankful” they ought to be to the white man for improving their quality of life. Meanwhile, indigenous Australians have lost almost all sense of identity and culture because of white colonisation.
What is left of Aboriginal identity and culture has been nearly completely destroyed. And most people in this disgustingly privileged country do not give a single god damn fuck.
Australia is a disgusting country when it comes to racism. I am disgusted by my own country.

:(

Reblogging this again because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples seriously do not get enough coverage in the world media and it is much the same even in Australia. 

black-australia:

lost-soul-in-paradise:

call-of-cthulhu:

sinidentidades:

 Australia’s history of racism towards Aboriginals is absolutely disgusting. 

Until the mid-60s, indigenous Australians came under the Flora And Fauna Act, which classified them as animals, not human beings. This also meant that killing an indigenous Australian meant you weren’t killing a human being, but an animal.

To this day, Australia breaks every code of the Geneva Convention when it comes to indigenous Australians and their human rights. The “public housing” that the government has given them are one-bedroom shacks with no running water, no electricity and no gas, that entire families are forced to live in. These shacks are in communities in the outback, as far away from “civilised” society as possible. Out of sight, out of mind.

Indigenous Australians that live in the city are commonly forced to live in very dangerous and derelict areas that the government gives very little funding towards. Redfern in Sydney is a highly indigenous Australian populated suburb that is rife with crime, unemployment and horrendous living conditions. The government does next to nothing to help these people, either.

Whenever riots have broken out as a result of incredibly low morale, the police and the government are very quick to point all the blame at the indigenous Australians and say that they are the cause of their own problems, rather than looking at what the actual cause is.

Unemployment rates amongst indigenous Australians is astronomical. Crime rates are astronomical. Suicide rates are extremely high within the indigenous Australian community. Death from inadequate living conditions and inadequate health care is common. Brutality towards indigenous Australians is common.

The way many indigenous Australians are forced to live is equivalent to that of what one would expect from a third-world country. Indigenous Australians are considered by the UN to be one of the most horrendously marginalised groups in the world.

And how does the government amend all of this? With a national “Sorry Day”, where white people plant a hand in some designated area of soil as a token of their white guilt, and then continue going about their white privileged day.

On top of that, white people here commonly bitch and complain about how “good” indigenous Australians have it and how “thankful” they ought to be to the white man for improving their quality of life. Meanwhile, indigenous Australians have lost almost all sense of identity and culture because of white colonisation.

What is left of Aboriginal identity and culture has been nearly completely destroyed. And most people in this disgustingly privileged country do not give a single god damn fuck.

Australia is a disgusting country when it comes to racism. I am disgusted by my own country.

:(

Reblogging this again because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples seriously do not get enough coverage in the world media and it is much the same even in Australia. 

(via )

“Let’s put it this way. Say you’ve got really serious art, and it takes really hard work, whether it’s painting or music or literature. That stuff’s not fun in the way commercial entertainment is fun. I mean fun — like eating a Twinkie. It’s like slipping into a warm bath after a hard day. It’s an escape. It’s a relaxation. And that’s fine, and that’s entirely appropriate. The danger comes when the escape becomes the overriding purpose. And one of the ways it seems that television has affected me is that my expectation for the amount of fun and pleasure to work — that ratio is very different than they are for my parents. I think my pain threshold is lower. My expectations are higher. My level of resentment at having to do anything I don’t particularly want to do that isn’t pleasurable is higher. I think a certain amount of that comes from the fact that for six hours a day I receive certain messages — you know, ‘relax, we’re going to give to you, you don’t have to give anything back, all you need to do is every so often go and buy this product.’ But animals have fun. My dogs play. And watching them play — there’s a purity of intent and a lack of self-consciousness that I wish I could achieve when I was experiencing pleasure. But Plato and John Stuart Mill both take books to talk about different types of pleasure. In my own personal life, I like really arty stuff a lot of the time. But there’s also times I watch an enormous amount of TV, and I’ve read probably 70 percent of Stephen King’s books. And I’ve read them basically because for a little while I want to forget that my name is David Wallace, you know, and that I have limitations, and that I’m sad that my girlfriend yelled at me. I think serious art is supposed to make us confront things that are difficult in ourselves and in the world. And one of the dangers is if we get conditioned to confront less and less and experience more and more pleasure, the commercial stuff’s gonna win out.”
— from a 1997 interview with David Foster Wallace by David Wiley (via slothnorentropy)

(via slothqueenthings)

thepeoplesrecord:

Drone killings case thrown out by US; victims convicted ‘posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so’April 6, 2014
A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.
The families of the three – including Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born militant Muslim cleric who had joined al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate, as well as his teenage son – sued over their 2011 deaths in US drone strikes, arguing that the killings were illegal.
Judge Rosemary Collyer of the US district court in Washington threw out the case, which had named as defendants the former defence secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta, the former senior military commander and CIA chief David Petraeus and two other top military commanders.
"The question presented is whether federal officials can be held personally liable for their roles in drone strikes abroad that target and kill U.S. citizens," Collyer said in her opinion. "The question raises fundamental issues regarding constitutional principles and it is not easy to answer."
But the judge said she would grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
Collyer said the officials named as defendants “must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the US constitution when they intentionally target a US citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress. They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”
Awlaki’s US-born son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old when he was killed. Also killed was Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who had moved to Yemen in 2009 and worked on Inspire, an English-language al-Qaida magazine.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Centre for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represented the families. They had argued that in killing American citizens the government violated fundamental rights under the US constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
"This is a deeply troubling decision that treats the government’s allegations as proof while refusing to allow those allegations to be tested in court," said ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi. "The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution."
Centre for Constitutional Rights lawyer Maria LaHood said the judge “effectively convicted” Anwar al-Awlaki “posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so”. LaHood said the judge also found that the constitutional rights of the son and of Khan “weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them”.
"It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy and for all victims of the US government’s unlawful killings," LaHood said.
Collyer ruled that the families did not have a claim under the Constitution’s fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizures because the government did not seize or restrain the three who were killed. “Unmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture,” she wrote.
Collyer wrote that the families had presented a plausible claim that the government violated Awlaki’s due process rights. “Nonetheless the court finds no available remedy under US law for this claim,” the judge wrote.
"In this delicate area of war making national security and foreign relations the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role."
Allowing claims against individual federal officials in this case “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation”, she wrote. It would “require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions”.
Nasser al-Awlaki, father of Anwar al-Awlaki, said he was disappointed in the American justice system and “like any parent or grandparent would, I want answers from the government when it decides to take life, but all I have got so far is secrecy and a refusal even to explain”.
Drone attacks have killed several suspected figures in al-Qaida’s Yemen-based affiliate including Awlaki, who is accused of orchestrating plots to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and US cargo planes in 2010.
The United States has faced international criticism for its use of drones to attack militants in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. A UN human rights watchdog in March called on the Obama administration to limit its use of drones targeting suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants.
Barack Obama’s administration increased the number of drone strikes after he took office in 2009 but attacks have dropped off in the past year. The US has come under pressure from critics to rein in the missile strikes and do more to protect civilians.
Source
thepeoplesrecord:

Drone killings case thrown out by US; victims convicted ‘posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so’April 6, 2014
A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.
The families of the three – including Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born militant Muslim cleric who had joined al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate, as well as his teenage son – sued over their 2011 deaths in US drone strikes, arguing that the killings were illegal.
Judge Rosemary Collyer of the US district court in Washington threw out the case, which had named as defendants the former defence secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta, the former senior military commander and CIA chief David Petraeus and two other top military commanders.
"The question presented is whether federal officials can be held personally liable for their roles in drone strikes abroad that target and kill U.S. citizens," Collyer said in her opinion. "The question raises fundamental issues regarding constitutional principles and it is not easy to answer."
But the judge said she would grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
Collyer said the officials named as defendants “must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the US constitution when they intentionally target a US citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress. They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”
Awlaki’s US-born son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old when he was killed. Also killed was Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who had moved to Yemen in 2009 and worked on Inspire, an English-language al-Qaida magazine.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Centre for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represented the families. They had argued that in killing American citizens the government violated fundamental rights under the US constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
"This is a deeply troubling decision that treats the government’s allegations as proof while refusing to allow those allegations to be tested in court," said ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi. "The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution."
Centre for Constitutional Rights lawyer Maria LaHood said the judge “effectively convicted” Anwar al-Awlaki “posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so”. LaHood said the judge also found that the constitutional rights of the son and of Khan “weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them”.
"It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy and for all victims of the US government’s unlawful killings," LaHood said.
Collyer ruled that the families did not have a claim under the Constitution’s fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizures because the government did not seize or restrain the three who were killed. “Unmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture,” she wrote.
Collyer wrote that the families had presented a plausible claim that the government violated Awlaki’s due process rights. “Nonetheless the court finds no available remedy under US law for this claim,” the judge wrote.
"In this delicate area of war making national security and foreign relations the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role."
Allowing claims against individual federal officials in this case “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation”, she wrote. It would “require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions”.
Nasser al-Awlaki, father of Anwar al-Awlaki, said he was disappointed in the American justice system and “like any parent or grandparent would, I want answers from the government when it decides to take life, but all I have got so far is secrecy and a refusal even to explain”.
Drone attacks have killed several suspected figures in al-Qaida’s Yemen-based affiliate including Awlaki, who is accused of orchestrating plots to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and US cargo planes in 2010.
The United States has faced international criticism for its use of drones to attack militants in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. A UN human rights watchdog in March called on the Obama administration to limit its use of drones targeting suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants.
Barack Obama’s administration increased the number of drone strikes after he took office in 2009 but attacks have dropped off in the past year. The US has come under pressure from critics to rein in the missile strikes and do more to protect civilians.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

Drone killings case thrown out by US; victims convicted ‘posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so’
April 6, 2014

A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

The families of the three – including Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born militant Muslim cleric who had joined al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate, as well as his teenage son – sued over their 2011 deaths in US drone strikes, arguing that the killings were illegal.

Judge Rosemary Collyer of the US district court in Washington threw out the case, which had named as defendants the former defence secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta, the former senior military commander and CIA chief David Petraeus and two other top military commanders.

"The question presented is whether federal officials can be held personally liable for their roles in drone strikes abroad that target and kill U.S. citizens," Collyer said in her opinion. "The question raises fundamental issues regarding constitutional principles and it is not easy to answer."

But the judge said she would grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case.

Collyer said the officials named as defendants “must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the US constitution when they intentionally target a US citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress. They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”

Awlaki’s US-born son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old when he was killed. Also killed was Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who had moved to Yemen in 2009 and worked on Inspire, an English-language al-Qaida magazine.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Centre for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represented the families. They had argued that in killing American citizens the government violated fundamental rights under the US constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.

"This is a deeply troubling decision that treats the government’s allegations as proof while refusing to allow those allegations to be tested in court," said ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi. "The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution."

Centre for Constitutional Rights lawyer Maria LaHood said the judge “effectively convicted” Anwar al-Awlaki “posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so”. LaHood said the judge also found that the constitutional rights of the son and of Khan “weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them”.

"It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy and for all victims of the US government’s unlawful killings," LaHood said.

Collyer ruled that the families did not have a claim under the Constitution’s fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizures because the government did not seize or restrain the three who were killed. “Unmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture,” she wrote.

Collyer wrote that the families had presented a plausible claim that the government violated Awlaki’s due process rights. “Nonetheless the court finds no available remedy under US law for this claim,” the judge wrote.

"In this delicate area of war making national security and foreign relations the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role."

Allowing claims against individual federal officials in this case “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation”, she wrote. It would “require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions”.

Nasser al-Awlaki, father of Anwar al-Awlaki, said he was disappointed in the American justice system and “like any parent or grandparent would, I want answers from the government when it decides to take life, but all I have got so far is secrecy and a refusal even to explain”.

Drone attacks have killed several suspected figures in al-Qaida’s Yemen-based affiliate including Awlaki, who is accused of orchestrating plots to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and US cargo planes in 2010.

The United States has faced international criticism for its use of drones to attack militants in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. A UN human rights watchdog in March called on the Obama administration to limit its use of drones targeting suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants.

Barack Obama’s administration increased the number of drone strikes after he took office in 2009 but attacks have dropped off in the past year. The US has come under pressure from critics to rein in the missile strikes and do more to protect civilians.

Source