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).'"

32 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:SCOTUS by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:SCOTUS by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.

      So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore, and that any idea that we live in a democracy or a republic is just a pleasant fantasy? If a Supreme Court ruling can be simply ignored by the other two branches, why are they there?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:SCOTUS by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yup. The problem here is not that the people do not have a means to control their government it is that the vast majority of them do not give a shit. We have become a nation of people that will wait till the cops arrive while being bludgeoned to death. We will vote which ever party promises us the most free stuff. We value the illusion of safety over freedom. the news anchor is our one true God.

      We have exactly the government we deserve.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:SCOTUS by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. The problem here is not that the people do not have a means to control their government it is that the vast majority of them do not give a shit. We have become a nation of people that will wait till the cops arrive while being bludgeoned to death. We will vote which ever party promises us the most free stuff. We value the illusion of safety over freedom. the news anchor is our one true God.

      We have exactly the government we deserve.

      SOME people in this country have exactly the government they deserve. Those of us who faithfully follow the process, campaign for better ideas, and get nowhere because we're surrounded by masses of apathetic, incompetent idiots do not have the government we deserve. Significant power and authority returning to the individual states would help with that (not solve it by any means, but help).

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  2. No answer will be given by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:No answer will be given by UconnGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No answer will be given by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?
    3. Re:No answer will be given by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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"
    4. Re:No answer will be given by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:No answer will be given by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When legal basis is secret, everything is legal... or illegal, as the keepers of the secrets deem fit.

  3. above the law by dlt074 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we have not followed the law of the land for some time. why start now?

    more meaningless proclamations.

  4. Lets see what hapens by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Obligatory by Lumpio- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?

    1. Re:Obligatory by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Informative

      So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?

      Yes

      And yes American citizens abroad as well.

      http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/
      http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18019-federal-court-drone-killing-of-u-s-citizens-is-constitutional

      ... well, as long as you are on a terror watch-list which automatically removes your rights or aren't the "intended" target.

    2. Re:Obligatory by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd certainly be a good border security method against Mexicans. In fact, they could start by just targetting drug runners and practically solve the drug problem overnight. Drug dealers cost America more money and kill more americans than terrorism by about 100000x

      When did drug smuggling become a capital crime?
      And when did suspicion (probable or not) of capital crime put aside the requirement for due process?

    3. Re:Obligatory by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?

      It should be the other way around. A country should only be permitted to kill its own citizens, not citizens of other countries.
      The former is acceptable, given the citizens in question are part of the electorate who sanctioned the laws and government, giving them powers over their lives.
      The latter is an act of war and trespasses on the sovereignty of other countries and its citizens.

  6. Secret Laws? by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Secret Laws? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Secret Laws? by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Notice how many TV shows are about Law Enforcement these days?"

      We've always had shows about law enforcement, what's changed is perspective from the 70/80's to the 90/2000's.

      The former were about largely about innocent people accused of crime who got exonerated (Matlock, Murder She Wrote, Perry Mason, Diagnosis Murder) or plain old bad detectives (Get Smart, Inspector Gadget, The Pink Panther).

      In the modern era, the cops always find the right bad guy who may get off due to technicalities (Cold Case, Law and Order, CIS, Special Victims Unit, 24, Cops).

      When the cops are always moral and their accused guilty, our justice system eventually has laws passed to conform to our notions of pop culture.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  7. There's a broader question to be addressed here... by mmell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Citizenship Is Not A Shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Citizenship Is Not A Shield by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  10. its really rather simple. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:Booo, America sucks by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bravo! USA is finally taking its well deserved place among countries like China and North Korea.

  12. Re:Booo, America sucks by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:I am confused on this issue by jittles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:I thought there were rules about this already? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:stop being a pussy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    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"
  16. Re:I am confused on this issue by Xylantiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  17. Why only Americans are of concern ? by boorack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Why only Americans are of concern ? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference, however subtle, between a government killing its own citizens versus other people. Governments kill citizens of other countries all the time, that's called war. When a government is using its military to attack its own citizens, regardless of which government it is, then that is a major problem. Those governments are typically not seen as very legitimate in modern times. Syria is a good example of that. Syria is an interesting case though, the world doesn't seem to really care what's happening there.

      It would be interesting to see the US government declared illegitimate by its people. I would support that, I know that I am not represented in my own government. If I contact my representatives I get a boilerplate response. If I try to meet with one of my representatives I get ignored. This country is definitely not a representative democracy or really even much of a republic, it is an oligarchy. The elite and wealthy are the ones with the real power, not the people in general.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black