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.
History dictates that Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense. He has already done this for himself and his AG; the latter currently in contempt of an ineffective Congress which is unlikely to do anything about it. With a Democratic Senate, there will be no impeachment.
These are the facts, and I commend all of you who could read them before down-moderation.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
we have not followed the law of the land for some time. why start now?
more meaningless proclamations.
I wont hold my breath that he wont hide behind executive privilege or use bushes favorite "Turruiists!!!" but one thing I do know is that obama will find some way to avoid having to explain himself. Most transparent president in history and all....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
I am -- and the court seemed -- appalled at the idea that "secret laws" can apply in a constitutional republic.
I doubt SCOTUS will touch this, as they tend to kick the can down the road on big issues like this, which, of course, will let it stand.
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.
Since when is it permissible for any government to employ military force against its own (civilian) citizens?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Nobody (including US) seems to obey that rule, however . . .
That doesn't mean that it will actually happen though.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Oh wait, that's right, in China you can deploy the military against anyone you want and kill someone for a blog post and in North Korea, they can kill you for absolutely any reason and in most Middle East countries it's very similar and um...yeah, so everywhere else is as or more fucked up than the US.
We're not really better, I guess. Just different.
Note that "convicted" doesn't mean "we know" - it means there was a trial of some sort, with rights preserved and arguments presented before sentence is carried out.
You do your beliefs ill service by rabidly posting invective. 'Speak' more calmly - less people may hear you, but more will listen.
I did say it was a broader question.
"Military (force|technology)" is an arbitrary distinction. "law enforcement" agencies of all sorts, national and local, use all sorts of technologies. As far as i have heard there is no legal distinction between a military and non-military technology. For example. The proliferation of violent commando raids against non-violent suspects.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
... if you Democrats and you Republicans will, just this once, stop trying to frame this massive criminality as something that Those Awful Others are chiefly to blame for. On this matter - as in all matters of true importance to the Empire - the two wings of the Money Party are in complete, intimate, and profound agreement.
as proof, and thank you for the up.
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.
Didn't work with my parents, either.
I am confused on this issue. I'm not sure I even understand the question. Here is my thinking, so please comment:
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
I'm unclear why the citizenship of the person has anything to do with the military action used against them. I am also unclear why the method used to fire upon the person changes anything either. Would it make a difference if the person was a US citizen because they were born here but left 2 days after birth? What if they were a naturalized citizen who was a resident for more than 7 years?
Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?
Who was led by George the Baptist.
To maintain a some what effective justice system centered around upholding the US Constitution requires examining existing precedents raised in similar but possibly very different circumstances where a particular law or protected right has been applied. I think the killing of a US citizen who is located in a foreign state who is preaching violence and providing religious indoctrination for those carrying out acts of violence against the state and it's citizens is an exceptional case that does not lend itself to being judged by the same laws he would face in the US had he been located there. If the countries where the known terrorists groups are located cannot or will not make an effort to handle the matter it leaves a gigantic loop hole where a US citizen could break any number of laws and be assured safe heaven in another country. Had the Afghani, Iraqi, Yemini, or Pakistani governments been able to capture and prosecute or extradite the alleged offenders the US would not have to take matters into it's own hand. The fact that one or two US citizens have been targeted under these circumstances does not mean the government is throwing all citizen rights and protections out the window. It means there was really no other viable alternative to reaching this person.
Obviously we are at war. In war we have always, out of need, deliberately killed civilians and at no time have we asked for a national ID to determine whether an enemy was a citizen of any nation or not. To make it simple even on American soil a cop has the right to apply lethal force to an individual who refuses to surrender. Whether such a person is brought down by a sniper on a swat team or by a drone dropping a grenade through a window means nothing at all. Now are we to suppose that American citizens, who have become enemies of our nation and are aiding our enemies in a combat zone should not be killed? Has anyone bothered to think of the consequences of risking the escape of such people? Frankly drones are savers of innocents in combat. In the past we would bring down an entire city just to get at a few enemies within that city. With drones we need not do massive bombings but usually can target a small and specific target with very few innocents caught in the blasts. Look at what we did in Iraq as an example. We knock out sewer, water and electric sources. Obviously when one takes away sewer, water and electricity it is expected that many civilians will perish as a consequence. People can not go to work. Pay checks end and innocents starve to death, get sick or suffer neglect. War is designed to be nasty. We do too good a job of limiting the applied misery as it drags out wars which otherwise might be quickly ended thus saving both our troops and innocents caught in the conflict zones.
It's turned into a bunch of paranoid libertarians trying to one up each other with how outraged they are.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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"
This isn't a new problem for the United States. The US has dealt with the same or similar problems in the past. The American renegades get all the due process needed for the circumstances. In fact, American renegades today are almost certainly getting more due process than has been performed in the past.
You can see a depiction of Americans in a similar legal status and how they were dealt with here.
Constitutionally it is fine. Arrests, formal legal charges, trials, judges and lawyers are not needed. If the renegades want that they can surrender and get those instead.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No my dear moderator, that was not "flamebait." That is what is called an opinion, and a reasonable and justifiable one at that. The fact that you don't like my opinion doesn't make it flamebait. The fact that I invoke the history of previous dealings with similar problems does not make it flamebait. You have misused your modpoint, no doubt because you don't have a counterargument. You penalize me for your shortcoming.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Since October 26, 2001. Patriot act passed and made it perfectly legal.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
(OPINION): Legal != Permissible.
"Enemy Combatant" is an illegal status.
One is either member of a national armed force and thus must be made prisoner of war, or one was not, in which case you are a civilian (whether insurgent or criminal).
That extra "no rights whatsoever" 'middle' that was invented has no place on a civilized world.
"Military (force|technology)" is an arbitrary distinction.
Military technology is an arbitrary distinction, yes. The OP used the phrase "military force".
Military force is when the military is used to apply force, and it is completely distinct from "military technology". A US Army PFC acting under his commander's order wielding an ax to stop someone looting a grocery store in the US is still a violation of posse comitatus even if the technology isn't "military" in nature, because it is still military force.
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).
By what right did the US Government kill all those confederates at Antietiam and Gettysburg? The US always maintaned and stills maintains that they were US citizens. What about their due process rights? Shouldn't they have all been served warrants and had their day in court before they were killed? Maybe their families have a right to sue for violation of civil rights.
Oh wait, they were bearing arms in open rebellion and making war on the Republic.
Same deal here. If you openly wage war, even against your own state, you can be killed. I'm not even sure why a "justification" beyond that is required. Why do we let lawyers cloud our minds with nonsense and sophistry?
AUMF that allow's it. It is overly broad. I congress person voted against it and was labeled a traitor by most American at the time.
Listen to Radiolabs : 60 words.
http://www.radiolab.org/
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
When those citizens take up arms as part of a military force at war with the United States, and the US Congress has authorized military force against them.
Al Qaida declared war in 1996 and has conducted many attacks since then. The US Congress authorized military action in 2001.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If he had stayed in the US he would have been arrested and prosecuted in the justice system. He would not have been targeted for execution by a drone or sent to Guantanamo. He would have had his chance to defend his rights and actions in open court with defense counsel if he wished. And there is a fine line between 1st Amendment speech and incitement to commit a violent act. It would have been an interesting case and he could have milked the notoriety and publicity better than he ever could sitting in a tent in Yemen in front of a web cam.
Suppose...there was a relevant analogy here. Because none of the people being assassinated are killed on the battlefield - that's why they're assassinations. Markets, weddings, apartment buildings...those are the sites of your typical drone strikes, where people are minding their own business. Not in a firefight with Marines or plotting the next strike with the Legion of Doom. Like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was blown up at a cafe with his cousin because he was born to the wrong father.
It's not that it's "okay", it's that the Constitution provides greater protections for citizens than for non-citizens. But even for non-citizens, it's not okay to target them with signature strikes, where we don't even know who we're killing,
None of this is new. Start here to get your feet wet. Continue on at the Guardian, and finally to the presdent day. If that's too tl;dr, just know that the USG didn't stop being full of shit at every level with the invasion of Iraq. That if a "senior administration official" tells you that water is wet, you just might want to verify their claims.
It is consistent with appropriate due process against the enemy during war*, including American turncoats, to attack them. If you don't agree then you are apparently against the Constitutional war making powers of Congress, and the President's role as Commander in Chief. You may notice the courts don't have a role there.
* Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, equivalent to a declaration of war.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm guessing it'll be, "If those guys didn't want to explode, they wouldn't be in Derkaderkastan."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think you mean, "fewer people".
Actually, there are significant distinctions. E.g., it's against treaty for a military organization to use tear gas or other chemical weapons against a foe, but not against treaty for a police organization to do so.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, actually, it is always been acceptable to kill people during war without checking their passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
You don't have to like that Congress declared war on various non-state entities, it suffices here just to understand that it happened.
Isn't it a bit racist to make a difference between killing americans and other people?
I don't understand why, in cases like this, so much attention is given to the question whether it's lawful or not.
Who cares?! Of course it's lawful, the governments of the world have made sure to have enough overly broad "war on terror", "won't somebody think of the children", "national security" laws on the books to make it possible to find a legal loophole justifying anything. Fuck the law.
Surely the question should be whether it's moral or not?
If you're using treason in this context, you arguably missed out on the fact that treason was the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, and that there was a good reason for that.
Since when is it permissible for any government to employ military force against its own (civilian) citizens?
There are a large number of countries which have no equivalent to posse comitatus, and the US didn't have posse comitatus until 1878 -- 100 years after the Constitution was enacted. In those countries it is permissible for the government to use military forces against their own citizens.
I'm pretty sure that armed (combat) drones are military technology.
Military technology is not the same as military forces, and it a pretty nebulous term, kinda like "assault weapon".
Bigoted, nationalistic, tribal, and evil but not racist.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news