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."
The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
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.
'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.'
Read the summary but somehow totally missed this part. Thanks for the polite response. :-)
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution. Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.
Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts. The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution. Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system. Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.
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.
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
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.
And this has been proven in a court of law? Or is based on the hunch of some intelligence analyst who is contracted through a corporation to provide support to the DoD?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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'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.
Treason is a crime. Crimes are dealt with by arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing.
Responding to purported treason by assassination is a cowardly, banana republic approach.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The other reason to focus on drones, besides their novelty, is the fact that they are(notably unlike men with guns) commonly used on targets not immediately engaged in hostilities.
If somebody is actively involved in a firefight, this creates both a strong presumption of guilt and a strong practical difficultly in apprehension. Returning fire and killing them isn't ideal; but it is about as good as is practical. And, in such situations, I wouldn't see it as terribly relevant whether the shot is delivered by the forces on the ground, manned air support, or robotic air support.
However, one of the drone roles is the "We believe person X to be in building Y, not doing anything of note at present; but a known enemy on other occasions. Send a drone to blow up building Y." Here, there is none of the immediacy of the firefight scenario. In effect, a "trial" has occurred of citizen X, based on some sort of intelligence data, and now a sentence is being carried out. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where, by high quality intelligence or by luck, the judgement is correct; but a request for information on how these judgements are carried out seems neither unreasonable, nor equivalent to demanding that soldiers in active engagement undergo absurd risks to take their opponents into custody undamaged.
When drones are used for air support of an active operation, they are generally called that. "Targeted killing", at least historically, always refers to the execution, by military means, of somebody believed to be an enemy in the context of some sort of military conflict; but not immediately engaged in hostilities.
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.