ACLU Sues CIA Over Drone Killings

ACLU Sues CIA Over Drone Killings

by Stephen Lendman

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been around since the Vietnam
era.
They were used as reconnaissance platforms. In the 1980s, Harpy air
defense
suppression system radar killer drones were employed. In the Gulf War,
unmanned combat air systems (UCAS) and X-45 air vehicles were used.

Others were deployed in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999.
America's new weapon of choice is now commonplace in Iraq, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, elsewhere abroad, and domestically
for
law enforcement and surveillance. Escalated domestic and foreign use
is
planned.

A previous article called drone warfare remote control killing like
sport.
From distant or nearby command centers, operators wage virtual war.

They dismissively ignore human carnage. It shows up as computer screen
blips. They look no different from video game images. The difference,
of
course, is people die.

They're mostly noncombatants. Studies show militants are successfully
hit
about 2% of the time. Others are wrongly targeted or happen to be in
the
wrong place at the wrong time.

On January 13, 2010, the ACLU petitioned Washington under the Freedom
of
Information ACT (FOIA). It requested legal justification claimed for
conducting predator drone targeted killings abroad.

In March 2010, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit.
As part of its challenge, it collected about 200 on-and-off the record
public statements. Former and current US officials made them.

It "demand(ed) 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 the other basis information essential for assessing the
wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted
killings."

In court briefs, Justice Department lawyers claimed revealing
sensitive
documents would compromise national security. How many times before
have we
heard that? It doesn't wash.

The same excuse is given in political prosecution cases. Secret
evidence is
used to convict. Defense attorneys and defendants can't contest it.
Who
knows if it exists?

On September 13, ProPublica.org headlined "How the Gov't Talks About a
Drone Program it Won't Acknowledge Exists," saying:

Drones are Washington's weapon of choice. They're used for targeted
assassinations. No one anyway is safe. Eye in the sky predator drones
spot
victims, aim, fire and kill.

Administration officials claim drone warfare works. It does so sans
details, often staying anonymous, yet claiming "tacit credit" at the
same
time.

"A White House spokesman declined to comment to ProPublica on the FOIA
suit
or on the CIA's drone program." Silence is official policy on what's
widely
acknowledged.

Vagueness substitutes for specifics. For example, in October 2011,
former
CIA director/current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:

"I have a hell of a lot more weapons available to me in this job than
I had
at the CIA, although the Predators aren't bad." Did he acknowledge
predator
drone killings or their use to surveil and gather intelligence?

Months earlier he said Pakistan-based Al Qaeda elements were beaten
back in
part from "the most aggressive operation the CIA had been involved in
in
our history." Did he mean by drones or other means?

At the same time, The New York Times reported in May that the CIA
considers
all military-aged males killed combatants. Targeting them is fair
game.
Rule of law principles don't apply. Killers and higher-up superiors
aren't
prosecuted.

In his book titled "The 'Good Soldier' On Trial: A Sociological Study
of
Misconduct by the US Military Pertaining to Operation Iron Triangle,
Iraq,"
Professor Stjepan Mestrovic discussed violations of US and
international
law.

He documented "hundreds of instances" of lawless and other "dubious
behavior on the part the government."

US brigade commander Col. Michael Steele was one of many examples. He
ordered every military-aged Iraqi killed on sight. Doing so also
violates
the US Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10.

Paragraph 498 says any person, military or civilian, who commits a
crime
under international law is responsible for it and may be punished.

Paragraph 499 defines a war crime. Paragraph 500 refers to a
conspiracy,
attempts to commit it, and complicity with respect to international
crimes.

Paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders in the commission
of a
crime, and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an "act of state" to
absolve
them.

These provisions apply to all US military and civilian personnel. They
include top commanders, the Secretary of Defense, his subordinates,
CIA and
other intelligence officials, as well as the president and vice
president
of the United States.

In other words, no one is exempt on this or other fundamental rule of
law
principles. Target killings are lawless. Habeas and due process still
apply. Exemptions are prohibited.

The ACLU sued the Defense, State, and Justice Departments. They
stonewalled
information requests. "(N)or have they given any reason for
withholding
documents. The CIA answered the ACLU's request by refusing to confirm
or
deny the existence of any relevant documents."

At the time, the CIA wasn't sued. At first, the ACLU appealed its
non-response to the Agency Release Panel. In June 2010, it filed suit.
It
argued that CIA's response wasn't lawful "because the CIA Director and
other officials….publicly acknowledged the existence of" the Agency's
drone
program.

After the lower court ruled for CIA, the ACLU appealed to the District
of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were scheduled for
September 20, 2012. The DC Circuit is notoriously conservative.

Expect ACLU lawyers to face stiff headwinds. Supreme Court justices
are no
better. Like political Washington, federal courts represent absolute
power
corrupting absolutely. Don't bet on ACLU prevailing against odds that
long.

On September 18, a press release headlined "ACLU in Appeals Court
Thursday
Arguing Against CIA's Secrecy Claim on Targeted Killing Documents."

The Agency refused to respond to FOIA requests. Its killer drones
operate
daily in numerous countries. It makes public statements about its
program.

Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House
Intelligence Committee that US drones kill Americans. He added that
targeted killing "is the only game in town." It reminded him of body
counts
in Vietnam.

At the same time, few details about the drone program are discussed.
Comments are made in broad terms. Necessity and legality are claimed.
"Military operations" outside "hot" battlefields are acknowledged.

Government and CIA officials don't formally admit the Agency's
involvement,
let alone details.

Obama prioritizes drone killing. They're the "one tool we use," he
said. He
usurped the power of life and death, including over US citizens. He's
got
final "kill list" authority. He can order drone or other attacks to
kill
anyone, anyway, based on his say alone.

ACLU wants information on "when, where and against whom drone strikes
can
be authorized, and how the US ensures compliance with international
laws
relating to extrajudicial killings."

According to ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer:

"The notion that the CIA's targeted killing program is a secret is
nothing
short of absurd." Everyone paying attention knows it exists."

"For more than two years, senior officials have been making claims
about
the program both on the record and off. They've claimed that the
program is
effective, lawful and closely supervised."

"If they can make these claims, there is no reason why they should not
be
required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act."

On June 13, 2012, ACLU v. CIA requested a DC Circuit expedited
hearing.
"This case concerns (CIA's) refusal….to confirm or deny the existence
of
records responsive Plaintiff's (FOIA) request (concerning) the CIA's
use of
drones to conduct targeted killings."

"Plaintiffs filed their FOIA request on January 13, 2010 and commenced
this
suit on March 16, 2010. After the district court (Collyer, J.) granted
summary judgment to the CIA on September 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
timely
appeal."

"The only issue on appeal is whether the CIA's refusal to confirm or
deny
the existence of the drone program….is lawful given that senior
government
officials have repeatedly discussed (it publicly)."

"Plaintiffs have argued that government officials have officially
acknowledged the program in those contexts and that the CIA's refusal
to
confirm or deny the existence of the program here is unlawful."

Expedited resolution was requested because of "immense public interest
-
namely, the lawfulness, effectiveness, strategic wisdom, and morality
of
the CIA's use of drones" to kill.

The entire ACLU document can be read through the above link.

A Final Comment

Last July, America's "newspaper of record" moralized drone use. Its
article
headlined "The Moral Case for Drones," saying:

"….moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists
believe
armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any
other tool of warfare."

The article stands in stark contrast to a May one titled "Secret 'Kill
List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," saying:

Obama "placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations'
process to
designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part
has
become largely theoretical."

In other words, he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
Despot
authority is official administration policy. Diktats decide who lives
or
dies.

Anyone called Al Qaeda or accused of terrorist connections gets marked
for
death.

What "moral and legal conundrum" could he face, asked The Times? None
whatever. On day one in office, he spurned rule of law principles.
It's
been downhill ever since.

The New York Times and other media scoundrels march in lockstep.
They're
comfortable with imperial lawlessness.

Killing by any means has no moral basis whatever. Claiming it makes
supporters complicit. Because of its global reach and influence, NYT
bosses, editors, and contributors have the greatest cross to bear.
Expect
no mea culpas or apologies.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at *lendmanstephen
[at]
sbcglobal.net* <lendmanstep...@sbcglobal.net>.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

*http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html*<http://www.claritypress.com/
Lendman.html>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.