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."

Comments

Someone tagged this FOIA

[Brett Buck]

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.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[rworne]

Because there are some US citizens that are actively working with the Taliban. If US citizens are working as enemy combatants then they should be eligible as targets as well.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Maxo-Texas]

However, with these drones, they are specifically targeting people.

So they know "this is john smith of 1390 mockingbird lane, CA and a U.S. citizen." That's the point of the protest-- known U.S. citizens are being targeted for execution.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[uncledrax]

If you can justify that they are military combatants of a foreign nation, or political faction of a nation, they would have have their citizenship revoked as per US TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > 1481. Those persons may still have renounced their citizenship based on how you interpret section b... there's to many commas for my simple mind to comprehend.

Either way, even if they ARE a citizen, and they are pointing a weapon at you and you have reasonable cause to fear for your life, you're covered by Self Defense.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[mdarksbane]

You're missing something, though. The suit is about "alleged" treasonous scumbags.

If an American citizen moves to Afghanistan, buys and AK-47, and starts shooting at US soldiers, no one even begins to claim they can't fire back and shoot the bastard.

Similarly, if he joins Al Qaeda, is present while the training camp is raided, and ends up killed in the shooting, the soldiers get a reasonable level of leeway that they didn't *know* he was a citizen before they started shooting - they aren't going to be required to check ID's before they can open fire.

This is about the government deciding, through whatever process (even if it is correct), that an American citizen is a terrorist operative, and then taking steps to eliminate that person with no due process.

If they decided that someone in Michigan had been helping terrorists, they can't put a sniper on a rooftop and take him out on his way to McDonald's. If he's a serial killer they can't do it either.

The fact that this is being done with drones is only tangential to the real constitutional problem here. The drones are just an effective and lower-risk form of assassination.

So, is that clear enough? Actively engaged in a terrorist act = blow the fucker up. Suspected of engaging in terrorist actions = due process of law, just like being suspected of rape, murder, or any other horrible a person can do.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

Rules yes. But not lawyers and laws about what is acceptable as a weapon and not.

For example the combat shotgun has been repeatedly criticized since the 1890s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun#History - usually by nations that didn't deploy them in combat (Ottoman Empire, Germany, United Kingdom).

This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[bistromath007]

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.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[quantumplacet]

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.

Re:US Citizens

[TubeSteak]

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.

Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[AP31R0N]

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.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[AndersOSU]

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.

Re:US Citizens

[tylersoze]

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.

Re:Oddly Enough

[lgw]

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.