Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the rationale-[redacted] dept.

The Washington Post is reporting that the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Obama administration to disclose its legal rationale for killing American citizens with drone strikes.

If I'm reading this correctly, the ruling applies only to drone strikes that kill American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, not the entire broader campaign of drone attacks in Pakistan and other countries. It doesn't require the strikes on Americans to stop, but it does appear to open the door to legal challenges to the justification for such attacks.

The Court's ruling does allow the administration to redact the documents before release. The full 52-page PDF of the ruling is available here.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:31AM (#34248)
    Because we can. And there's nothing you can do about it.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:26AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:26AM (#34275) Journal

      The assertion of extrajudicial power of execution invalidates the sovereignty of any power. Reciprocity, if not immediately technologically feasible, is legally inevitable. The pain you inflict will be returned to you, this is the law of karma, and the law of blowback. I do not know these people, and have nothing to do with them. They cannot be Americans.

    • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:38AM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:38AM (#34301)

      You wish. The memo either doesn't exist (we lost it), or the magic words "national security" will be used.

    • (Score: 2) by snick on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:29PM

      by snick (1408) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:29PM (#34372)

      What you mean is:

      Because XX XXX. And XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX can XX XXXXX it.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by physicsmajor on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48AM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48AM (#34252)

    This doesn't separate out American citizens, but it's incredibly poignant how much pain and death we are dealing out that is not being covered. At all. Also, the tremendous amount of collateral damage being inflicted.

    http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ [pitchinteractive.com]

    With sources.

    Everyone regardless of supposed political leaning should see this.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by rjt on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:05AM

      by rjt (4187) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:05AM (#34255)

      That's an excellent link. It's interesting that there have been no civilian casualties in almost a year. I wonder if this is this just a feature of the fact that the number of strikes in Pakistan has seemingly decreased, or have they became more accurate in their targeting?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by davester666 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:55AM

        by davester666 (155) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:55AM (#34259)

        It's more of a 'redefine everybody killed by the drone as being a terrorist and/or supporter of terrorism' thing.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:57PM (#34353)

          the sad reality is, that is actually true

        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:43PM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:43PM (#34510)

          > It's more of a 'redefine everybody killed by the drone as being a terrorist and/or supporter of terrorism' thing.

          That is absolutely true. [huffingtonpost.com] It is also par for the course. I've spent a lot of time consulting for defense contractors and what I learned in the process is that redefining the problem away is standard practice when they don't want to spend the money to really fix things.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:58AM

        by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:58AM (#34261)

        Sadly, what's really been happening is a lack of interest in categorizing the actual casualties.

        The vast, vast majority of the "Other" grouping is civilians or children. If they were combatants or terrorists, you bet we'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Much easier to bin all the troublesome casualties as "Other," particularly when the press is effectively wholly owned and uninterested in doing their jobs as the fourth estate.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:30PM (#34400)

          The vast, vast majority of the "Other" grouping is civilians or children. If they were combatants or terrorists, you bet we'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

          Given the source, I interpreted "other" as "intended targets." They list, after all, only "Children" "Civilians" and "Other," with no mention of "Terrorists."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:15AM (#34265)

      Anything can be spun to accent a particular leaning or angle. IT seems to me that in the one case mentioned in the posting, this is an "amerikan". Go and take out the movie "Not without my daughter". These cherry-pie people have duped and lulled the US into submission to their agenda. Nuff sed... go watch, have a think...

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by WillAdams on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:09PM

      by WillAdams (1424) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:09PM (#34357)

      Or here:

      http://notabugsplat.com/ [notabugsplat.com]

      We're supposed to be the good guys. Winning hearts and minds didn't work in Vietnam 'cause that conflict wasn't about good vs. evil --- we need to not bother w/ conflicts unless there're clear, unambiguous labels to be applied and we need to avoid force, save as a last resort --- just as Gen. Washington warned us in his farewell address, ``...moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.'' --- Geo. Washington http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.as p [yale.edu]

    • (Score: 1) by JustNiz on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48PM

      by JustNiz (1573) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48PM (#34443)

      I'd like to see a similar graph on the actions of the terrorists.

      I suspect what this would actually confirm is that a whole lot of innocents are getting killed by both sides, but unlike the terrorists, the drones don't also commit torture, rape, abuse, indoctrination, religious persecution, brainwashing and incarceration. Also unlike terrorists, the drones aren't targeting civilians on purpose.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:16PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:16PM (#34457)

        "the drones don't also commit torture, rape, abuse, indoctrination, religious persecution, brainwashing and incarceration."

        Unfortunately I am not sure which side you're referencing here. Are you talking about Guantanamo Bay such that we're morally better off just killing them outright rather than sending them to camps or ?

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:16PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:16PM (#34486)

        When the TB tie someone up and boil them alive as an example, nobody cares. Is it terrorism? Yes. Is it global terrorism in any way? Nope. Does it help enable the TB to reach a global level. Yes.

        When Iraq was having it's pseudo-"civil war" problem it was really just terrorism and power grab. Most Sunni attacks on Shiite were from people not indigenous to Iraq. I'm not pointing fingers or anything, both sides went at it really hard. The Coalition was just in the way. People like to joke about terrorism but that's only because they aren't affected by it. Global terrorism seems to be very very rare. What do you call a city gang when they kill people to send messages? Murderers, yes. But you could also say terrorists. A terrorist doesn't have to be the Hollywood stereotype. A terrorist doesn't even have to kill people. Eco-terrorists typically target industrial facilities and not the people who work at them.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:56PM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:56PM (#34520)

          > Global terrorism seems to be very very rare

          Something like 85% of all terrorist acts in Europe are about seperatism and nationalism. [loonwatch.com] I expect that's about what it is for the rest of the world too. Even now, in Iraq, the place is going to shit again precisely because the religious group in power has been icing out the other guys. It is human nature to want self-determination and when they don't get it through politics, people turn to violence in order to share their frustrations. If the iraqi government hadn't decided to forget about all that pesky stuff about being a representative government, they wouldn't be facing all the violence from the people who aren't represented.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by bill_mcgonigle on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:34AM

    by bill_mcgonigle (1105) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:34AM (#34268)

    Did anybody read the decision? I'd expect 8 pages of black blobs with a few prepositions connecting them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:19AM (#34282)

      I'll guess they'll only black outs all nouns and verbs.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by mth on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:23AM

    by mth (2848) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:23AM (#34274) Homepage

    If I'm reading this correctly, the ruling applies only to drone strikes that kill American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, not the entire broader campaign of drone attacks in Pakistan and other countries.

    IANAL, but a US court probably doesn't have anything to say about attack in which no American citizens are involved. Since the US refuses their military to be judged by international courts [wikipedia.org], this is the only subset of drone attacks that can be dealt with in courts today.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:58AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:58AM (#34324) Homepage Journal
      Technically they could but it would have to be a foreign national who was injured bringing the suit. As for not submitting to international courts, would you submit to any court you didn't have to? Me either. Especially not one loaded with people wanting to lynch me.
      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:44PM (#34554)

      applies only to drone strikes that kill American citizens
      a US court probably doesn't have anything to say about [an] attack in which no American citizens are involved

      The rules establishing what the USA gov't cannot do were established in 1789.
      Those are contained in this quaint old thing called the US Constitution.

      To do something prohibited in that founding document requires an amendment approved by 75 percent of the country.

      From Amendment 5 (part of what is commonly called The Bill of Rights):
      No person shall be[...]deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

      Notice that it does NOT say "no American citizen"; it further does NOT say "no resident of the United States".
      It very clearly says NO PERSON.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:50PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:50PM (#34347)

    This is the Obama administration. One of the least open administrations in history. Clearly, they're going to appeal this to the Supreme Court, on as many grounds as possible. That's going to delay things something fierce.

    Then, if they still lose, given they're allowed to redact the memo, they'll redact pretty much everything. All the rationale, all the analysis. They'll just leave the introduction, and the conclusions, with the odd word here and there. Of course, the groups who filed suit will protest, and we'll be back in square one in court with a judge reviewing whether the government has overredacted, appeals of any decision there, appeals of any decision there to the supreme court, and at best an order to be more forthcoming. And then we unredact a few words and start over....

    They will NEVER get what they want, which is the actual rationale in a document.

    The Obama administrations "our killings are legal" is just as bunk as Bush's "we do not torture" claim (which has already been admitted to have been false).

    • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:00PM

      by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:00PM (#34388)

      "This is the Obama administration. One of the least open administrations in history. "

      Sometimes I think of the Obama administration like the first Enterprise starship. Here we build this cool ship to explore the galaxy, thinking along the lines of "We come in peace, we are explorers, let us share in knowledge". Launch day binds us all to the great hope of discovery and we cheer as the brave crew takes off to the unknown future.

      Not much after leaving Earth's safe orbit our intrepid captain and his crew run into trouble. A warlike race called Tpubs, or Repugs, or BleuDems surrounds the Enterprise and starts to make demands. "Do what we say or we'll fire". Captain Obama calls "Raise shields" and his plucky FO says "but sir, you said we should never raise shields. We should be transparent and open, and inviting to all people".

      In reply, our glinty eyed leader says "Fuck that, when shit is hitting the fan it is not time to be polite. Raise em or get spaced, cadet". With that the shields go up and miraculously the embattled ship escapes its enemy. Everytime the captain wants to lower shields, he's attacked so finally he just gives up. "You want war you republican dogs, bring it on". Since neither side ever had an advantage, the battle raged on till the people of earth lost any hope of new discovery, any hope of a bright future; they just went about their lives saying "who cares, they really can't be stopped".

      all kidding aside, it is hard to be "open" when anything can be twisted, turned, and repackaged to look like something else. This is not a defence for Obama per se, but it is an acceptance that if you are being attacked it is hard to be open.

      War is hell, people die. If we don't want drone attacks then We tell our leaders to stop it. We tell them to stop a war on "Terror" and instead either declare war on a country or shut the fuck up. If you want to bring someone to justice then do just that instead of sending a missile up their ass.

      What I found thoughtful in this regard, we knew the location of Bin Laden just like we knew the location of other's we've killed. Why did we not send a drone in and just blow the place up. Theater?

      --
      The more things change, the more they look the same
      • (Score: 1) by opinionated_science on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:17PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:17PM (#34392)

        wasn't it, "we come in peace, shoot to kill?"

        "Klingons on the starboard bow..."

        • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:14PM

          by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:14PM (#34432)

          Curse you...I now got that tune stuck in my head. I must now find it, play it and try to wipe it out again.

          --
          The more things change, the more they look the same
  • (Score: 1) by JustNiz on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:59PM

    by JustNiz (1573) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:59PM (#34448)

    Before you accuse the US Gov of atacking poor defenceless US citizens with drones, you need to actually read about this guy:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]

    I say this as a European who is not a US citizen: I think the US are to be commended in this case for "taking out the trash". It seems no other country had the balls to step up and do what was right for the benefit of the whole planet. If I had any criticism at all of this action, it would only be that they didn't get it done sooner.