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: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.