US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
A few days ago NBC News released a short Department of Justice document it attained which laid out the administration's justification on the legal conundrum brought up with ordering drone strikes on American citizens. This particular scenario was invoked with the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda member who was killed in a drone strike with two others (also citizens) in September of 2011. Even then the attack raised questions as to whether it indicated a slippery slope with the constitution. As the document above lays out, the US government was of the opinion that since the person posed a threat to national security, that normal channels of due process was not necessary. Thus it confirms that such a decision was taken at the executive.
A longer form of this document will be given to the relevant Congressional committee who raised the call for them once it was leaked, and it is likely to come up in the confirmation hearings for the CIA nominee, John Brennan.
Congress to See Memo Backing Drone Attacks on Americans
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday directed the Justice Department to release to the two Congressional Intelligence Committees classified documents discussing the legal justification for killing, by drone strikes and other means, American citizens abroad who are considered terrorists.
The White House announcement appears to refer to a long, detailed 2010 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who had joined Al Qaeda in Yemen. He was killed in a C.I.A. drone strike in September 2011. Members of Congress have long demanded access to the legal memorandum.
The decision to release the legal memo to the Intelligence Committees came under pressure, two days after a bipartisan group of 11 senators joined a growing chorus asking for more information about the legal justification for targeted killings, especially of Americans.
The announcement also came on the eve of the confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon for John O. Brennan, President Obama’s choice to be director of the C.I.A., who has been the chief architect of the drone program as Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism adviser.
Critics accused Mr. Obama of hypocrisy for keeping the legal opinions on targeted killing secret, noting that in 2009 he had ordered the public release of the classified memos governing C.I.A. interrogations under President George W. Bush. Administration officials replied that the so-called enhanced interrogations had been stopped, while drone strikes continue.
Until Wednesday, the administration had refused to even officially acknowledge the existence of the documents, which have been reported about in the press. This week, NBC News obtained an unclassified, shorter “white paper” that detailed some of the legal analysis about killing a citizen and was apparently derived from the classified Awlaki memorandum. The paper said the United States could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible.
Administration officials said Mr. Obama had decided to take the action, which they described as extraordinary, out of a desire to involve Congress in the development of the legal framework for targeting specific people to be killed in the war against Al Qaeda. Aides noted that Mr. Obama had made a pledge to do that during an appearance on “The Daily Show” last year.
“Today, as part of the president’s ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the president directed the Department of Justice to provide the Congressional Intelligence Committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject of the Department of Justice white paper,” said an administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the handling of classified material.
The official said members of the Intelligence Committees would now get “access” to the documents.
Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the president’s move “a small step in the right direction.” But he noted that the legal memo or memos were not being shared with the Armed Services Committees, which have jurisdiction over Pentagon strikes, or the Judiciary Committees, which oversee the Justice Department. It was not clear whether the release involved more than one memo.
The public should be permitted to see at least a redacted version of the relevant material, Mr. Anders said. “Everyone has a right to know when the government believes it can kill Americans and others,” he said.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to closely question Mr. Brennan about his role in the drone program during his hearing. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the committee, said in a phone interview that he had been working in his office on questions for Mr. Brennan about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday when Mr. Obama called him and said that “effective immediately he was going to make the legal opinions available and he also hoped that there could be a broader conversation.”
Mr. Wyden has repeatedly called on the administration to release its legal memorandums laying out what the executive branch believes it has the power to do in national security matters, including the targeted killing of a citizen. Earlier on Wednesday, at a Democratic retreat in Annapolis, Md., he had hinted at a potential filibuster of Mr. Brennan’s nomination by vowing to “pull out all the stops to get the actual legal analysis, because without it, in effect, the administration is, in effect, practicing secret law.”
Mr. Wyden said that committee members would have immediate access to the material, and that there would be a process for other senators to read it eventually. It was not clear whether lawmakers’ legal aides would also be allowed to read it.
He said the administration’s decision to allow lawmakers “to finally see the legal opinions” was an “encouraging first step, and what I want to see is a bipartisan effort to build on it, particularly right now, when the lines are blurring between intelligence agencies and the military.”
The Congressional Intelligence Committees were created in the late 1970s to exercise oversight after a series of scandals at the spy agencies. The law requires that the committees be kept informed of intelligence activities. But most administrations withhold at least some legal opinions, treating them as confidential legal advice to the president and agency officials.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was pleased by the president’s action. “It is critical for the committee’s oversight function to fully understand the legal basis for all intelligence and counterterrorism operations,” she said.
The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed lawsuits to force the release of the classified legal opinions on targeted killing, including the one now going to the Intelligence Committees. A judge rejected the claims, and the decision is on appeal.
The use of unmanned drones in the war against terrorism — a technology that has greatly facilitated the ability of the government to kill specific people far from any “hot” battlefield — has significantly escalated under Mr. Obama, who has used them to target Qaeda leadership. Mr. Obama has hailed his administration’s success in killing many in the terrorist organization’s senior ranks and undermining its ability to attack America.
But there have been persistent questions about how targets are chosen, especially when it comes to American citizens who the government says have taken up arms against their country as part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.
Mr. Obama and administration officials have said they are pursuing a “legal framework” for those decisions, and some top officials have given speeches describing that legal framework. The unclassified white paper had been provided to members of Congress but had not been released publicly.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was asked on Wednesday morning whether the president owed the public a “clearer explanation” about the standards that the government must meet before it uses the drones to kill Americans overseas. He called that an “excellent question” and said Mr. Obama took it seriously.
“He’s talking about this in a very deliberative and thoughtful way about how we move forward as a nation on these issues, because, obviously, these are questions that will be with us long after he is president and long after the people who are in the seats that they’re in now have left the scene,” Mr. Carney said.
Asked about the timing of those deliberations, he said he did not have any information to provide. “But I just wanted to convey to you the seriousness with which the president approaches these issues, and he respects the questions being asked,” Mr. Carney said.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
What does the document say about the people who died with him in that strike? Were they militants too?
Its all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays
And one by one back in the Closet lays
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
(from the article in the post above) the United States could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible.
How is anyone to know if capture was feasible or not? How is anyone to know if that target is involved directly in a plot against the US? Is being a member of Al Qaeda reason enough to order their death?
It's interesting the US government was so concerned about the legal aspects pertaining to the 'targeted killing' (or shall we call it assassination, perhaps even murder) of a US citizen when it's been perfectly acceptable for the past few years to order the deaths of so many foreigners in these drone strikes (I guess Americans deserve some level of special treatment over others). The whole drone strike program is a controversial subject. IMO it's hard to defend a program designed to target and assassinate people on foreign soil (avoiding the 'messiness' or hard work needed for of an arrest, possible extradition, trial and imprisonment), but like the issue of the US supporting the use of torture (or "advanced interrogation techniques"), they can fuddle around with the legal wording, reason that since they're against you they're no longer deserving of any legal rights as a human being, and change whatever laws they need to make it A-OK.
Neil Macdonald: U.S. media complicit in Obama's drone doctrine
Some say U.S. president is waging a 'war on whistleblowers'
In 2001, when Israel started killing militant Palestinian enemies (and, often, innocent bystanders) with missiles fired from helicopters hovering so high you could barely see them, foreign reporters were urged by the Israeli government to call the practice “targeted killing.”
Most of us, including many of my American colleagues, preferred the term “extrajudicial assassination.” We felt we were in the news business, not the euphemism business.
Today, 12 years later, the Washington Post carries a front-page headline about the U.S. drone program titled, “Targeted killings face new scrutiny.”
Yet another government document has been leaked, this time a so-called “white paper” in which the U.S. Department of Justice lays out the administration’s justification for killing American citizens it suspects of belonging to Al-Qaeda.
U.S. media outlets, it seems, are perfectly comfortable with the term “targeted killing,” now that it is a major tool for the Pentagon and CIA.
It’s also clear American media outlets are comfortable suppressing news the government does not want published. Today’s story reveals not just that the Americans have operated a secret drone base for years in Saudi Arabia, but that the Post, along with various other news organizations, have been keeping that fact to themselves at the government’s request.
History of suppressing sensitive information
It isn’t the first time such information has been suppressed. In 2005, bowing to the White House, the New York Times for months kept confidential the fact that the Bush administration had been carrying out warrantless wiretapping. The revelations eventually provoked Congress to pass a new law.
Reports on the U.S. drone program, also based on leaks, have described how Barack Obama’s administration has become ever more dependent on remote-controlled killing. Obama himself reportedly signs off personally on each target.
The American public has been largely unconcerned with the program, except when the person killed has been an American citizen. (The U.S., unlike many other countries, accords its citizens special protections from government intrusions.)
That is the focus of the latest leak. The “white paper” in today’s story appears under the arid title “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaeda or an Associated Force.”
The term “senior operational leader” appears to be key. An American citizen who is a low-level fighter would appear to enjoy a legal immunity that does not extend to foreign nationals suspected of planning or involvement in attacks on Americans.
As the Post story rather dryly notes, “The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
There is an accompanying article today on the astonishing fact that 54 countries, including Canada, have participated in or enabled the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program of sending suspected militants to be interrogated, sometimes under torture, in secret prisons and by totalitarian regimes worldwide.
Twelve years ago, reporters had a different term for that sort of thing, too: kidnapping.
Obama's 'war on whistleblowers'
All these hardened security measures were begun under the Bush administration. President Obama, who once denounced them and even, as president, ordered Bush legal memos be made public, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun vigorously hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.
And that is one initiative the American media is not so comfortable with.
Some are calling it Obama’s “war on whistleblowers.” Current Attorney-General Eric Holder has prosecuted more officials for leaking information to reporters than any of his predecessors since the Second World War.
The government has hunted down intelligence officials who leaked details of expensive programs to spy on internet traffic, wiretaps placed in the Israeli embassy in Washington and of Obama’s personal involvement in selecting drone targets.
The lawyer for one of those officials said Holder’s prosecutors “don’t distinguish between bad people – people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money – and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions.”
Several news outlets have noted, rather acidly, that the administration seems fairly expert at leaking classified material that makes the government look good.
None of this makes Obama different from any previous president. It just demonstrates his ability to keep the nation’s media on board, and mete out punishment when they publish the wrong sorts of secrets.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Obviously the principles of justice state can't be followed in a situation like this where a militant US citizen resides in Yemen where there is a state of war-like clashes between the government and Islamist forces and he can't be brought to court.
A lot of US citizens are killed each year without a trial by the law enforcement. A person suspected of a murder has to be brought to court. He goes missing and is wanted by the authorities. By all means he avoids being caught and is then at some point killed by the police. Court procedure wasn't done, but justice was. Same here.
The tone of the discussion seems that imperialist US is doing some illegal operations in a foreign country that does not want it. Contary to that: Yemen's leader praises US drone strikes
Anwar al-Aulaqi and other al-Qaeda personnel seem to get rather a lot of sympathy.
Last edited by Rikupsoni; February 7th, 2013 at 02:12 PM.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
A lot of US citizens are killed each year without a trial by the law enforcement. A person suspected of a murder has to be brought to court. He goes missing and is wanted by the authorities. By all means he avoids being caught and is then at some point killed by the police. Court procedure wasn't done, but justice was. Same here.
The key differences are that suspects in the US usually have warrants out for their arrest, and nearly all who are killed fought the police directly with a gun. In Anwar al-Awlaki's case there was not a warrant out for his arrest, nor was he directly threatening the life of another person at the time of his death. The attack violated his 5th amendment rights.
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
The US is currently not at an official state of war, nor was he a member of the US armed forces.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
Obviously the principles of justice state can't be followed in a situation like this where a militant US citizen resides in Yemen where there is a state of war-like clashes between the government and Islamist forces and he can't be brought to court.
A lot of US citizens are killed each year without a trial by the law enforcement. A person suspected of a murder has to be brought to court. He goes missing and is wanted by the authorities. By all means he avoids being caught and is then at some point killed by the police. Court procedure wasn't done, but justice was. Same here.
No. The shooting of the murderer who escaped is not justice for the fact that he's a murderer. It's just that the policeman was permitted to kill in extremis for purposes of self defence. And the policeman is later held responsible, through the due process of the courts, for that action.
There's a subtle difference between killing someone in self defence, for which you will later be held to certain standards that are subject to review by the legal system which itself is constructed within a framework of a balance of power, while trying to bring them in, and just out and out murdering someone through an exercise of essentially arbitrary power on the behalf of the executive branch.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
No. The shooting of the murderer who escaped is not justice for the fact that he's a murderer. It's just that the policeman was permitted to kill in extremis for purposes of self defence. And the policeman is later held responsible, through the due process of the courts, for that action.
There's a subtle difference between killing someone in self defence, for which you will later be held to certain standards that are subject to review by the legal system which itself is constructed within a framework of a balance of power, while trying to bring them in, and just out and out murdering someone through an exercise of essentially arbitrary power on the behalf of the executive branch.
Well, law enforcement (especially in the US) is allowed to use potentially deadly force not only in self-defence but to prevent escape etc.
To what this could compare? Perhaps former CIA operations in Latin America, or Israeli Mossad assasinating former Nazis. They did though take Adolf Eichmann to a court, but Argentina strongly protested the violation of its sovereignity. The difference here is that Yemen approves US drone attacks.
Certainly the point here is not that the lives of US citizens are more valuable than others, but most likely just opposition to US foreign policy because that's trendy in the leftist circles. It's ridiculous that a single civilian death was brought up in the hearing protest - how many civilians have been killed by al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda operates asymmetrically and apparently the US should never stand for its interests.
So what do you suggest? Be humane towards the al-Qaeda? Let's see how the it's going to defeated with this logic.
Last edited by Rikupsoni; February 7th, 2013 at 04:46 PM.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
Well, law enforcement (especially in the US) is allowed to use potentially deadly force not only in self-defence but to prevent escape etc.
And, again, they'll be held to account for it within a system based upon a balance of power. Lawmen don't have a unilateral license to kill. They are, in principle, answerable to the will and interests of the people in a system that is designed to see that will done. When you start eliminating elements of that system things rarely go well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
To what this could compare? Perhaps former CIA operations in Latin America, or Israeli Mossad assasinating former Nazis. They did though take Adolf Eichmann to a court, but Argentina strongly protested the violation of its sovereignity. The difference here is that Yemen approves US drone attacks.
You don't know how it compares to those instances, because you're not privy to that information. All that we know* about these killings is that someone 'senior' sticks their signature on something claiming that they're a threat, and then you can go and kill them. This is a blank cheque to go and kill anyone who contradicts the interests of your government. And the government is not the people.
Point in case really - the US destabilised Latin American countries over things like the United Fruit Company. Wire-tapping was ordered on presidential candidates simply based on 'suspicion' - never substantiated beyond that - that they might open to foreign influence. People use these laws to use things against their domestic and political enemies. And killing people once the war's over was so ♫♫productive♫♫. More killing, just what the world needed. The people you've referenced yourself against are selfish killers and thugs.
The executive branch has proven time and again that they will abuse power if you put them in a position where they do not have to answer to review by the courts on the basis of laws that are read, framed and regularly reassessed in the context of congress and the senate. We're talking about a government that tests fucking radiological weapons on its own people god's sake.
---
*Edit:
Well, I tell a lie - we do know something about it: That the government doesn't even seriously pretend to follow its own regs in this regard. Not unless you believe AQ is using 16 year old kids as 'senior operational commanders' in positions where they pose an 'imminent threat' - which is a frankly laughable assertion. Not that they seem to have bothered to define their terms properly at all or like they'll ever get reviewed....
And you want to give them a blank cheque to just kill whoever they like... I... just. How does any of this sound like a good idea to you? You cannot trust these people, they've proven so time and time and time again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
Certainly the point here is not that the lives of US citizens are more valuable than others, but most likely just opposition to US foreign policy because that's trendy in the leftist circles. It's ridiculous that a single civilian death was brought up in the hearing protest - how many civilians have been killed by al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda operates asymmetrically and apparently the US should never stand for its interests.
So what do you suggest? Be humane towards the al-Qaeda? Let's see how the it's going to defeated with this logic.
Sure, kill terrorists. In the context of existing law subject to review by the courts. Look: You and I both know that some people just need killing. But you can't jump from that to 'So, the government gets to kill anyone it likes!' It cannot be enough to deprive someone of their rights just to say that they're a danger - especially not a citizen of your own country - you should be required to prove it in court to a standard agreed upon by the representatives of the people.
To say otherwise is just giving government unrestrained discretion. Something that history and all legal theory tells us never goes well. Authority without constraint, madness. Dicey would be turning in his grave.
And, frankly, I expected better from the right, you people are usually a little more insistent on the separation of powers and small government angle.
"Slippery slopes can be fun - kind of like a water slide."
- Larry, Burn Notice
Last edited by Nemmerle; February 7th, 2013 at 06:18 PM.
Re: US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
Certainly the point here is not that the lives of US citizens are more valuable than others
How about the other countries perform drone attacks and no-warrant arrests on american soil on the *belief* that they are terrorists and need to be exterminated?
To what extent will that be acceptable to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
The difference here is that Yemen approves US drone attacks.
Its all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays
And one by one back in the Closet lays
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
11Likes
US Congress to see document justifying White House's drone strikes on US citizens 
Linear Mode
