Slashdot Mirror
Administration Ordered To Divulge Legal Basis For Killing Americans With Drones
An anonymous reader writes "In a claim brought by The New York Times and the ACLU, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the administration must disclose the legal basis for targeting Americans with drones. From the article: 'Government officials from Obama on down have publicly commented on the program, but they claimed the Office of Legal Counsel's memo outlining the legal rationale about it was a national security secret. The appeals court, however, said on Monday that officials' comments about overseas drone attacks means the government has waived its secrecy argument. "After senior Government officials have assured the public that targeted killings are 'lawful' and that OLC advice 'establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate,'" the appeals court said, "waiver of secrecy and privilege as to the legal analysis in the Memorandum has occurred" (PDF).'"
Good it passed appeals; the administration will likely appeal the decision and this is the kind of thing the SCOTUS will take. Frankly it's about time some of the "war on terror" policies were seriously and heavily scrutinized for their legality.
we have not followed the law of the land for some time. why start now?
more meaningless proclamations.
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
You are absolutely crazy if you think anyone in government wants to explain this or be associated with this. All parties want this to go away quietly, because there's a non-zero chance "their guy" will be using this same tactic in the coming years.
This acts to disempower the government, which makes it a natural enemy to anyone working in the government.
Since when is it permissible for any government to employ military force against its own (civilian) citizens? I'm pretty sure that armed (combat) drones are military technology.
You sure understand what it means to be living in a country that's supposed to be filled with free and brave people. You're an ally of democracy, due process, and individual liberties in general.
Just because some of these so called "Americans" had a US passport doesn't mean they can take up arms against their country without consequences. I'm glad we can just blow these fuckers to smithereens and save taxpayer money on these enemy combatants. They should know not to fuck with US and should scare their buddies from thinking they can do the same.
Yeah, fuck due process, fuck the constitution! The United States Constitution is un-American!
its easier to simply do something and say you're sorry later than to ask for permission or follow the rules. We've locked up japanese americans during the second world war for nothing more than being japanese. We've tortured and detained without trial in secret military prisons the nationals of other countries in which we've declared a war upon something so ephemeral as 'terror.' We shackled and enslaved thousands of africans throughout our history in direct defiance of the charter that all men are created equal. We exterminated more native americans than hitler killed jews, an entire race of natives, just because we could. We branded countless celebrities communist, forever obliterating both their good name and their gainful employment.
in short, this administration as every one before it will invoke the same rhetoric to assert the privilege of spying on, and murdering, american citizens. that to think otherwise is unpatriotic, that to question it at all is tantamount to unamericanism. "Because fuck you, thats why."
Good people go to bed earlier.
The funny thing is that this is one of the two things that Obama can't blame Bush for, the other one being ObamaCare. So it'll be interesting to see what happens when the administration loses.
With a Democratic Senate, there will be no impeachment.
American Government fail on your part. The House of Representatives impeaches. The Senate convicts. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted and removed from office.
How long does it take before you're no longer allowed to justify what "your guy" does by pointing out the the "other guy" did bad stuff too? Does that end after Obama's current term, or are we still going to be hearing the "Bush did it too" excuse in 2020?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Bravo! USA is finally taking its well deserved place among countries like China and North Korea.
Really, that's your ad campaign? "USA: It's not as bad as China or North Korea?"
You're just the spiritual successor to Steve Rogers there, aintcha?
> Even a full Republican Congress would not move to impeach Obama on the basis of targeting Americans that
> are ALLEGED terrorist operatives hanging out with other ALLEGED terrorists in Yemen...
FTFY
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
In fact, you're well on your way to being far far worse.
Because you justify what you do as OK, and somehow different when other countries to it.
The hypocrisy of America is become pretty brazen. You claim to support one set of principles, but actively work to undermine those principles around the world.
You feel self entitled to do these things, and think the rest of the world should accept it because America is awesome.
To the rest of the world, the US is rapidly becoming like a rabid dog roaming around the neighborhood.
Xenophobic, whiny bitches, who work to undermine science, reason, and facts. Your propaganda machine is in full swing, and your citizens have been kept ill informed and in the dark.
You're a fucking joke.
History dictates that Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense
So he'll be like George Bush? After all, the previous administration used every trick in the book to prevent the public from knowing what the White House was doing such as claiming he needed "unbiased" information which is why he refused to turn over the visitor logs when meeting with oil executives on U.S. energy policy, or claimed that by not opening emails they weren't "read" and so the contents didn't have to be turned over to investigators, the public or even backed up for historical purposes.
And let's not forget Bush (and Vice-President Cheney) avoided every single Congressional request to testify on the failings of his administration to prevent the 9/11 attacks, including refusing to hand over every document requested by the 9/11 Commission except for one page, heavily redacted, which had the title, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.".
So if you're saying Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense, we can safely assume he is following the example of his predecessor
Please tell me you are not using the wrongs of the past to justify the wrongs of today? Come on now.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
The problem here is that everyone is required to have health insurance and yet the health insurance companies themselves can still say "screw you" and say that something is either not covered or drop you should you actually "use" said coverage. The problem here is that not a damn thing is changing with the insurance companies and they are using this as a great new profit center as people are now *forced* to be their customers, when said coverage is going up in price to where coverage is now more expensive than one's house payment.
If I had to venture a guess, the Obama administration would say, "We did it because we can. Who's going to stop us?"
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Who says we're a Constitutional Republic any longer?
Secret Laws, Secret Warrants, Secret Detention and Secret Courts have been the norm since the Patriot Act, which was signed when we lost the War on Terror in 2001, by submitting to the terrorists and renouncing our freedoms in exchange for "Homeland Security".
And we love it. Notice how many TV shows are about Law Enforcement these days?
My guy? Who said Obama is my guy? I am only pointing out that people who are up in arms about what he is doing were, for the most part, completely silent when Bush did it.
Pick anything you like: executive privilege, spying on U.S. citizens, signing statements, the list goes on. Everything that he is doing, and the right is complaining about, are the exact same things Bush was doing and the right kept gloating about how well he was doing.
We cannot have it both ways. If you're going to complain about how one person is doing something, you have to do it about the other. If you're not going to complain when your guy does it, you can't complain when someone else's guy does it.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Well, in one case specifically the US was targeting a US Citizen who was overseas and supposedly involved in terror campaigns. He had no trial, even in absentia, which convicted him of the crime. The administration just decided it was okay to find him, launch a Hellfire missile at the vehicle he was in, and end the problem for good. It's entirely different if you find out ex post facto that one of the participants was a US citizen.
If there citizens are required to be afforded due process by constitution and can not be shown to receive such, it's forbidden. The actual question is how far they can/will go before there's enough push back to either make them decide to stop or face repercussions. All of this secrecy nonsense is simply meant to avoid some of the push back by implying there is legitimacy. So long as that strategy keeps working nothing is going to change.
When legal basis is secret, everything is legal... or illegal, as the keepers of the secrets deem fit.
Note that if he were in the US, "preaching violence and providing religious indoctrination", he would be protected by the First Amendment, at least up to the point that an actual act of violence occurred.
At that point, I think they could get him for incitement, perhaps, but that crime doesn't carry a death penalty....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think the basic problem is that we are not at war with country X.
I actually believe the basic bill of rights applies to the agents of government, not the people. i.e. it does not just protect these special people called "citizens", it restrains the government from certain actions, such as denial of due process of law, against any person. However, the general "rule of law" does not apply in a war zone. The problem is that we have become stupendously lax about exactly where the wars the US is currently fighting actually are. Are we at war with Pakistan? No, but we perform military strikes inside Pakistan without their consent. Are we a warlord or a modern country?
The saddest thing of this fiasco is that it applies only to Americans. (Un-)People of other nations are of no concern whatsoever. Obama can bomb the hell out of them and no one cares - at least in the US it not discussed at all. This looks pretty much like taken straight from nazi playbook. It emphasizes hipocrisy of all Americans proud of being "the greatest democracy in the world" (which it isn't).