You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
ACLU sues gov't over drones
2010-03-17
Enjoy your meal, folks...
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government Tuesday to learn the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings by the military and CIA.

"In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings," the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.
I wonder if the ACLU sued in May, 1942 to find out FDR's preparations for the battle of Midway, so that the public could have an informed discussion about the wisdom and legality of bushwhacking the Japanese Navy ...
The nonprofit civil liberties group filed initial Freedom of Information Act requests with the Defense, Justice and State departments and with the Central Intelligence Agency on Jan. 13. Only the CIA responded, and the ACLU is pursuing that request with an appeal to the agency.

The military and intelligence communities have increasingly relied on Predator and Reaper unmanned drones to capture video imagery and launch deadly missile strikes, particularly lately in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The Pentagon, especially, continues to purchase more and more drones each year.

A New American Foundation study, cited in Jane Mayer's October 2009 New Yorker piece that drew attention to the CIA's use of killer drones, found the number of attacks has continued to grow under the Obama administration -- from 34 in 2008 to 43 by October of 2009.

"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions -- not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program."

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is a defendant in the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, said he had not yet seen the complaint. "The bottom line is that we will review the compliant once we receive it and make a determination as to how we'll respond in court," he said. The Defense Department, another defendant, had no immediate comment.
Posted by:tu3031

#22  would the ACLU sue if I told them too suck it
Posted by: chris   2010-03-17 23:23  

#21  Ya wish it was, but it isn't. Especially when they get Barry and the boys to cave...

NEW YORK – According to news reports today, State Department official Harold Koh stated that the Obama administration has considered legal objections to its predator drone program and suggested that the administration would release a detailed legal justification for the controversial program at an undetermined date.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Tuesday against the State Department and other agencies demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

“We welcome reports that the Obama administration is seriously considering the legality of the drone program, and are encouraged to hear that the rationale behind the program may be made public. We urge the State Department and other agencies to quickly disclose their positions, including on the program’s legal justification and the limits on where and against whom drones can be used. We also urge the administration to disclose other basic facts about the program, including information about the program’s oversight and the number of civilians that have been killed in drone strikes. The use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated legal, moral and policy issues, and the public needs this kind of information in order to engage meaningfully in the debate over these questions.”
Posted by: tu3031   2010-03-17 22:06  

#20  ACLU sues gov't over drones

Is it April 1st?
Posted by: lex   2010-03-17 21:46  

#19  The ACLU drones on. Definitions of a drone:

1. A male bee that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. 2. An idle person who lives off others; a loafer. 3. A person who does tedious or menial work; a drudge:
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-03-17 19:45  

#18  Why doesn't the Amerikan Communist Liberal Union just ask Eric Holder for the docs the next time they meet for lunch?
Posted by: airandee   2010-03-17 18:48  

#17  This world is getting nuttier by the minute...
Posted by: abu Chuck al Ameriki   2010-03-17 17:04  

#16  Let's be clear: what the ACLU wants are operational documents about the conduct of war. No court in our country can authorize the release of such documents.

Article II of the Constitution leaves war-making to the President. Article I leaves the decision to go to war, and funding for the war, to the Congress. Article III says not one word whatsoever about a role for the courts in the conduct of war. The FoIA does not give people the 'right' to demand documents concerning war-making operations.

Those documents are secret for a reason: we don't wish to tell our enemies what we're doing, or how we're doing it, or what we plan to do tomorrow.

If the ACLU can't trust the 'wisdom and legality' of how the current administration makes war, they can vote for someone else in 2012.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-03-17 17:03  

#15  when is the ACLU gonna be put on the terrorist list?
Posted by: chris   2010-03-17 16:43  

#14  Wisdom? Policy? Moral questions? The ACLU seems to be suffering from the delusion that they're an unofficial third house of Congress, and confused FoA filings for congressional subpoenas.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2010-03-17 15:23  

#13  American Civil Liberties Union

-their name is one of the biggest oxymorons on the planet.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2010-03-17 15:18  

#12  they should've renamed this article "drones going after drones."

f*ck the ACLU.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2010-03-17 15:12  

#11  Maybe she could shoot him on sight? Eric Holder sez it's okay...
Posted by: tu3031   2010-03-17 14:46  

#10  This is obviously based on the common belief among lefties that we need a legally correct law enforcement approach rather than military force for the struggle against terrorism.
Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden is still at large, but could the ACLUÂ’s non-military, due-process approach really work? Perhaps they would like to show up the Pentagon by trying it themselves:

ACLU Babe (peering into cave): “Come out, Mr. Bin Laden, I have a suitcase full of arrest warrants for you.”

Osama: “Be gone, impudent strumpet of the Great Satan!”

ACLU Babe : “Well! There’s no reason to talk like a Republican. It’s to your advantage to stand trial, you know. You could explain how your impoverished childhood and Bush’s Imperialist Foreign Policy caused the revolt on September 11th. Our top historian, Oliver Stone, says so.“

Osama: (Mumbling) “Impoverished? Revolt? Buwaaahaahaa!” (shouting again) “Silence, brazen female without veil. You should be stoned.”

ACLU Babe: “Stoned? Thanks, but this is no time for an office party, and your chauvinism is Republica—, er, repugnant. Please, we can help! Media interns, er, peace activists, have ordered a million ‘Free Osama’ tee shirts. Saddam Hussein’s personal lawyer, Ramsey Clark, might help with your defense.”

Osama: ”Clark? Phooey! His clients keep getting bombed or hanged. Not want Saddam’s lawyer anyway! Saddam was blasphemer and communist!”

ACLU Babe: “Commu-—? Accchhh! That’s McCarthyism! First sexism, and now this! The horror! You belong in prison after all! Come out now, you red-baiting sexist beast!”

Osama: “Enough of your insolence, hippie harridan!”

(We leave the scene as 200 armed terrorists swarm out of the cave.)
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2010-03-17 14:09  

#9  ALL members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are aware that they are engaged in violent acts against the United States and are subject to detention and arrest if apprehended. Applicable common law and various statutes endorse the doctrine that force may be used against such persons without further warning if apprehension is impossible or if such warning would present an unreasonable danger of evasion or violent resistance.

Just to make sure, I hereby place all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban currently resident in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia under citizenÂ’s arrest for murder and sabotage, and for aiding and abetting murder and sabotage, acts I have actually witnessed or of which I have direct knowledge as prescribed by the common law and the statutes of the State of Texas, of which I am a legal resident.

Come out with your hands up or weÂ’ll shoot.

Now, bugger off, ACLU.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2010-03-17 13:45  

#8  When they start hitting targets in Boise or Boca Raton...come and see me.
Posted by: tu3031   2010-03-17 13:40  

#7  Someone needs to sue the ACLU for their desires to put our troops in danger.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2010-03-17 13:33  

#6  The ACLU is not pro-peace, it is pro-terrorist.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-03-17 13:28  

#5  Since they live in caves, I thought they were on the list for the flamethrower squad?
Posted by: Silentbrick   2010-03-17 13:13  

#4  I think the ACLU is worried that one day, maybe the US will wake up and realize that it is also one of its enemies and we'll send a hellfire up their bollocks. They want the target list first so they can change location before the strike.
Posted by: DarthVader   2010-03-17 13:07  

#3  Jameel Jaffer seems to be one of them, not us. Of course, the ACLU is going along with it . . . .

Kinda makes me wish we could push all those on the wrong side of this equation into a parallel universe so they can enjoy the consequences of their clulessness.
Posted by: gorb   2010-03-17 13:01  

#2  Unless someone badly misinterprets the rules on FOIA, this is just for the headlines. None of what they asked for is releasable.
Posted by: rwv   2010-03-17 12:59  

#1  Where was the ACLU during WWII ? [sarc]

we are at war

our freedom is at stake
Posted by: Mike Hunt   2010-03-17 12:39  

00:00