Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Sues Over Legality of "Targeted Killing" By Drones
MacAndrew writes "The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles — commonly known as 'drones' — for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001.' (Complaint.) The information sought includes the legal basis for use of the drones, how the program is managed, and the number of civilian deaths in areas of operation such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.' Aside from one's view of the wisdom, effectiveness, and morality of these military operations, the inclusion of US citizens suggests that summary remote-control executions are becoming routine. Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes). This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles, and the US government evidently doesn't want to discuss it."
I can almost guarantee that the information sought is either classified or at least FOUO (For Official Use Only) which means it's exempt from the FOIA.
UCAVs are not at all autonomous. For the very reasons already mentioned, they basically can't be. They can autonomously fly around and look at things, but firing weapons requires somebody on the ground calling for a strike, and somebody in a shack somewhere actually making it. It's not as though a drone can actually see the face of any people its shooting at; how would it know that it has found somebody on The Dreaded List unless somebody on the ground first said "he's over there?" The legality of killing people with drones is thus basically identical to the legality of doing so from any other aircraft. Good luck stopping that.
My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.
The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.
I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Despite the standard inaccurate Slashdot headline, they're not actually suing over the legality of targeted killing by drones, they're suing over the disclosure of information. Government transparency is a big part of what the ACLU is all about, and they're suing to get the government to hand over the documents. If impropriety is found once/if the documents are released, most likely a different group would actually sue over the abuses, since they are, as you say, not a civil liberties issue.
If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?
Try this article if you're confused about the ACLU's motives
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat_hentoff/article_085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html
Here's the short version of things that are bothering the ACLU:
1. Lots of foreign civilian casualties
2. "nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"
3. we don't know under which American laws and international treaties the President has authorized this program of targeted killings
No matter how the Pakistani Government feels, bombing Pakistani civilians is only going to piss off and radicalize the locals.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" [From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)] Emphasis mine..
Yes, true, drone attacks do cause collateral damage, but perhaps we should go back to carpet bombing because they are not prefect? (Not that I don't tend to agree on your last point)
First of all, "this Republic" hasn't declared war on anyone but Saddam Hussein, who is now dead and deposed. I doubt you can define who our "enemies" even are.
Secondly, US Citizens retain their rights regardless of their location or whether the military feels like assassinating them. The Constitution defines treason for a reason.
And, yes, I'm sure the ACLU and anyone else with half a brain objects to the US military engaging in undeclared warfare targeting US citizens.
Did you eat lead paint as a child, or what?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
i was a 1N051 with an above TS clearance during the Clinton years. i taught LoAC stuff.
If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)
Drones/UAVs are NOT ROBOTS, they do not select targets or pull the trigger. By law they cannot.
Targeted killing is fine in combat. Popping a cap in Mrs. Merkel's ass right now would be illegal and a bad idea for many reasons. If we were fighting Germany, she'd be fair game because she is leader of enemy forces (civilian or not). Germany's minister of arts or some such would NOT be.
If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason. A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.
Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.
i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This smells political.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
"I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen."
Yep. Sure do.
The problem starts when someone has said citizenship revoked by becoming an Enemy Combatant. Suddenly, the privileges applied and protections afforded national citizens...no longer apply.
This is the base of the entire issue of torturing terrorists... They are not recognized as citizens of any country and are thus without the protection of such things as the Geneva convention. By that agreement, we can legally do anything we want to them...as can any other country.
Is it right or ethical? Depends entirely on one's ethics and morals. Is it legal? Perfectly.
The second amendment is important. So are laws against cruelty to animals. Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.
The ACLU is a private advocacy group, the get to decide what they advocate for - and they can't do everything.
Uh yeah, they were shooting at them 1) with a gun 2) which generally doesn't cause massive collateral damage 3) during a declared war 4) at an enemy in uniform 5) while on the battlefield. Let's see which of those things is the same as the current situation? Oh right, not a goddamn thing.
We're talking about military gear, they aren't going to get a court order for every set of coordinates they hand to the artillery team
And they're not targeting individuals with artillery shells either. They're targeting strategic emplacements, enemy strongholds, and so on. Once you start targeting individuals, it's assassination. Assassinating enemy leaders is a valid tactic. Assassinating your own citizens, generally, is not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Thanks for the info. I went and had a look around to read some more, and found this: http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news Still not sure that indicates that there are a lot more cases of PTSD, but still, thanks for the heads up.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Assassination in wartime is "normal military work".
They even have guys that specifically specialize in this sort of thing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Congress has declared war. A bill doesn't have to have the title "Declaration of War", it simply has to authorize the use of military force in a foreign nation. We've done that for the conflict in Afghanistan. It is a declared war. Wars do not have to be on "state actors" - wars between a nation and a group of brigands or pirates used to be somewhat common.
Further, non-state militaries have less rights, not more, in the traditions of armed conflict as recorded in many treaties. Brigands and pirates (ie.e, unlawful combatants) captured by a military are not even considered "prisoners of war", and may be summarily executed. Whether we're stretching the definition of "unlawful combatant" is a whole different argument, but members of non-state militaries have fewer rights than members of state militaries, and for good reason.
But the Taliban in Afghanistan is, at least loosly, a government, and whether you consider their warfighters "soldiers" or "unlawful combantants" is mostly a matter of how much you think uniforms matter. They certainly aren't "civilians". Hiding among civilians while fighting a war doesn't make you a civilian, it makes you scum.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers
Guess they were unpopular even before Brooks Bro's suits were invented
I'm not a US citizen, but I'm pretty certain that Posse Comitatus is violated by such actions on behalf of your government.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker