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."
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?
Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
From the summary:
'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.'
That's part of the reason why the ACLU would be involved.
Another part is that they're a watchdog group. When the government is keeping secrets from its citizens, watchdog groups make noise. That's what they do. I'm glad for it - too much gets shoved under the label of "national security" and the press is useless if you can't provide them a decent "some say ... while others claim ..." narrative to wrap facts in.
The doctrine regarding the use of lethal force against American civilians can be classified ? That sounds like a real problem...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
And who cares if they are targeting US citizens?
I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen. Also, I was hoping I would be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of my peers. Yes, I know that's been thrown out the window in some cases but I would still prefer that over "Oh, they killed the Jones' today. Huh, they must have been consorting with terrorists." The ACLU is trying to protect your civil liberties and freedoms whether you want them to or not. Because to them and many other people, things like this are important.
My work here is dung.
I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best. It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.
But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial. In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by. WTF?
Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive. But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.
How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.
Banu
Shouldn't they be arrested, charged, and tried then, rather than summarily executed?
LRN 2 SWM
If US citizens are working as enemy combatants outside of the US, then they should be eligible as military targets as well.
Just to make it clear that the US military has no business going after US citizens on US soil. We have other agencies for that.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
No. We didn't arrest Confederate combatants in the American Civil War, nor did they set out to arrest Plains and Southwest Indian combatants who left the Reservations and treaty lands during the Indian Wars.
In the battlefield of the kind US soldiers face in the Middle East, I think it would be a tad cumbersome to verify the combatant down your gun sight isn't a citizen before pulling the trigger. Likewise, if a US citizen defects or otherwise joins the 'enemy' in the fight against US forces, then there is no distinction between the citizen and non-citizens in the target zone. How it differs from an extrajudicial killing is dubious though, I agree.
Are you seriously arguing that someone who:
1) Goes to another country
2) Fights on behalf of that country or a splinter group within it
3) Fights against the US and/or its allies
deserves protections offered by the Bill of Rights? These people are enemy soldiers, not just criminals. They deserve protections under the Geneva Convention, but that's it.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I made this same point a little earlier: the problem is who decides that they have done what you described? Obviously in the heat of combat, the losing side gets killed or captured. But these strikes are strategic - they are killing enemy leaders and disrupting the prosecution of war by the other side. So if a US citizen is determined to be an enemy leader (or similar) who decided? What process was used to decide? And importantly, the person might not even know that such a decision was made so they can't appeal.
If you think secret military decisions are less prone to mistakes than other parts of gov't and military activity, that's one thing, but I think it's safe to say that mistakes will be made in this area. So in effect they aren't stripping rights from one person they're stripping them from anyone they want, without recourse. That seems like a problem to me.
The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.
Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?
Probably because this joke sums up the problem very well:
If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?
Or, if I need to spell it out:
How do we know that people aren't executed, simply because they are a PITA and use the Freedom of Information Act against those in control of the drones?