ACLU files FOIA request on Predator program

[hist2004]

By Bill Roggio January 13, 2010 7:27 PM
http://www.longwarjournal.org/images/mq-9-reaper-afghanistan.gif This is sure to make many people in Washington uncomfortable (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-requests-information-predator-drone-program):
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the government to disclose the legal basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.

"The American public has a right to know whether the drone program is consistent with international law, and that all efforts are made to minimize the loss of innocent lives," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Obama administration has reportedly expanded the drone program, but it has not explained publicly what the legal basis for the program is, what limitations it recognizes on the use of drones outside active theaters of war and what the civilian casualty toll has been thus far. We're hopeful that the request we've filed today will encourage the Obama administration to disclose information about the basis, scope and implementation of the program."
The administration has used unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Pakistan and Yemen. The technology allows U.S. personnel to observe targeted individuals and launch missiles intended to kill them from control centers located thousands of miles away.


Today's FOIA request was filed with the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice (including the Office of Legal Counsel), the Department of State and the CIA.
Source - (http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/01/aclu_files_fioa_request_on_pre.php)

[Arnie100]

Tell the ACLU: Sorry, it's CLASSIFIED.

[Jobu]

I've been under the impression that it's covered under the AUMF.

[Clockwinder]

So now it's official. The ACLU IS a terrorist organization.

[Hispeed1]

facepalm.jpg

..."encourage the Obama administration to disclose information about the basis, scope and implementation of the program." ACLU gtfo please.

[Parx400]

Hopfully Obama gives them a warm helping of; Classified and Get ****ed.

[seraosha]

Actually...I'm with the ACLU on this one.
Kind of surprises me, because I'm all for those hot targets being serviced in a timely manner, but without clear ROE, this kind of "remote killing" could get out of hand...not saying it is, or that it's likely, lord knows these guys flying these things have to get the CIC in on every move they make...but I'd kind of like to know what the military's plan is on the use of these UAVs, and be better informed, within the restrictions of "need to know".

But I am enjoying the irony of the FOIA being used on the "most transparent admin EVAH" ;)

[demotivater]

Who says there isn't a clear ROE? Just because the ACLU isn't privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[eskachig]

I don't see a problem with this. I don't see the problem with the UAV program either. What I don't like is that US appears to have a "we will kill anyone anywhere" policy, and I would like it clarified.

Note, that I'm happy to reserve the right of a president to order extra judicial killings in the name of national security - executive privilege and all that. But when we aren't talking about special circumstances, but a long running program, even a central tactic, I think clarifying its legal basis is a good idea.

[LineDoggie]

ACLU, Shakespeare was right.....

[Fat Lazy American]

Exemption 1! Next!

[seraosha]

Who says there isn't a clear ROE? Just because the ACLU isn't privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This may be true, but we all know that "mission creep" happens in the field...even if the field is an airconditioned MILVAN somewhere in the rear.

[Parx400]

Nothing to see here ACLU. All is fine.

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss157/Parx400/1263596239891.jpg

[martinexsquaddie]

ACLU, Shakespeare was right.....

yes because removal of lawyers is the best way to run a tyranny.
drone attacks may be the only way to hit people in places where there is no rule of law. Should at least be over seen and reviewed frequently

[Hispeed1]

Great pic Parx!

[LineDoggie]

yes because removal of lawyers is the best way to run a tyranny.
drone attacks may be the only way to hit people in places where there is no rule of law. Should at least be over seen and reviewed frequently
And who says it isnt? just because it isnt on CNN or the BBC doesnt mean such reviews and oversight arent taking place right now... why does everyone think such things need to be publicised?

[Laconian]

They can file as many FOIAs as they want, not everything done in the name of national security is or should be for public consumption. That's why stuff is classified and to get to see it you have to have a level of clearance AND a NEED TO KNOW.

[California Joe]

Targeting is all TS level and above. I know this. If the public knew the hoops that are jumped through and the simulations done before anything is even launched they wouldn't question it. But they simply don't need to know.

[Terabyte]

If they do get the information (ACLU), would it compromise or harm the predator missons in Pakistan?
Good photos by the way Parx. GJ.

[eskachig]

Targeting is all TS level and above. I know this. If the public knew the hoops that are jumped through and the simulations done before anything is even launched they wouldn't question it. But they simply don't need to know.Nobody is questioning the competence of the personnel involved, and this is not about collateral damage. They are also not asking about targets, or for details of intelligence operations.

They are asking for the legal basis for the program itself.

[Laconian]

Nobody is questioning the competence of the personnel involved, and this is not about collateral damage. They are also not asking about targets, or for details of intelligence operations.

They are asking for the legal basis for the program itself.

The legal basis is that we are in a state of armed conflict and duly appointed/elected members of the Executive Branch said, "Make it so."

[California Joe]

It's a goddamned war and drone strikes are a valuable resource that doesn't involve putting our own troops in harms way. Pretty good basis in my opinion.

[eskachig]

The legal basis is that we are in a state of armed conflict and duly appointed/elected members of the Executive Branch said, "Make it so."There are limits on executive power, and it makes sense to explore just how far it goes in this case. Quite possible the courts will side with the executive branch here.


It's a goddamned war and drone strikes are a valuable resource that doesn't involve putting our own troops in harms way. Pretty good basis in my opinion.I agree in practical terms. I also don't think there are any questions about using UAVs in a warzone. But we aren't at war with Pakistan, and we have an extensive program where we carry out extrajudicial killings on another country's territory. If it was a once in a while thing everyone would roll their eyes and go on their way, but due to the scale of it, things start to look funny from perspective of international law.

I understand that the "we can kill anyone in the world anywhere without trial or showing evidence to anyone" approach is practical, but there are limits before we start looking like a nation of hypocrites.

I don't agree with the ACLU about many things, but I do like the fact that there is an organization that sometimes forces us to examine whether the ends really justify the means. And yes, by their very nature they are out of step with the majority of folks, and ask annoying questions at inconvenient times. Which is of course, the best thing about them.

[LaoSexMachine]

There are limits on executive power, and it makes sense to explore just how far it goes in this case. Quite possible the courts will side with the executive branch here.

I agree in practical terms. I also don't think there are any questions about using UAVs in a warzone. But we aren't at war with Pakistan, and we have an extensive program where we carry out extrajudicial killings on another country's territory. If it was a once in a while thing everyone would roll their eyes and go on their way, but due to the scale of it, things start to look funny from perspective of international law.

I understand that the "we can kill anyone in the world anywhere without trial or showing evidence to anyone" approach is practical, but there are limits before we start looking like a nation of hypocrites.

I don't agree with the ACLU about many things, but I do like the fact that there is an organization that sometimes forces us to examine whether the ends really justify the means. And yes, by their very nature they are out of step with the majority of folks, and ask annoying questions at inconvenient times. Which is of course, the best thing about them.

We are not at war with Pakistan. AQ and Taliban happened to hide in the Pakistan territories. Congress passed this after 9/11.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

[Clockwinder]

Why is this even being debated? The information and the process to allocate and deploy against legitimate targets is TS Delta and above. That means it's SECRET!!!! It's not subject to FOIA or any other nosy pinko pricck looking to make a name for themselves. After a period of time - between 20 and 30 years - the info will be released, and then these ****heads can write their books. Until then shut-the-fvck-up and let the warriors fight your war for you.
104980

[Dominique]

Why is this even being debated? The information and the process to allocate and deploy against legitimate targets is TS Delta and above.

Exactly what is " TS Delta"?

[sgt_G]

top secret-level D or something like that

[California Joe]

Maybe you weren't read in on Delta, Dom. ;)

[budgie]

It's a goddamned war and drone strikes are a valuable resource that doesn't involve putting our own troops in harms way. Pretty good basis in my opinion.

I have to agree. Drone Strikes look bad to the public - faceless robots and all that - but when a strike goes wrong it's usually due to the intel isn't it? A pilot in a manned jet could just as easily bow up a wedding at the speed and altitude they fly at because they can't see exactly who or what is on the ground. Shooters often only have intel to rely on to verify targets.

[martinexsquaddie]

maybe they get to stfu or not.
The US is not a dicatorship the drone strikes are carried out in the US peoples name and are pretty public. Probably the right thing to do is to question the legality of said actions. Does'nt mean there not legal.
**** is not just militarly its political as well