White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret
RT | January 3, 2013
A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.
United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens abroad in late 2011 [pdf].
Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US nationals with alleged ties to al-Qaeda, were killed on September 30th of that year using drone aircraft; days later, al-Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was executed in the same manner. Although the Obama administration has remained largely quiet about the killings in the year since, a handful of statements made from senior White House officials, including President Barack Obama himself, have provided some but little insight into the Executive Branch’s insistence that the killings were all justified and constitutionally-sound. Attempts from the ACLU and the Times via FOIA requests to find out more have been unfruitful, though, which spawned a federal lawsuit that has only now been decided in court.
Siding with the defendants in what can easily be considered as cloaked in skepticism, Judge McMahon writes that the Obama White House has been correct in refusing the FOIA requests filed by the plaintiffs.
“There are indeed legitimate reasons, historical and legal, to question the legality of killings unilaterally authorized by the Executive that take place otherwise than on a ‘hot’ field of battle,” McMahon writes in her ruling. Because her decision must only weigh whether or not the Obama administration has been right in rejecting the FOIA requests, though, her ruling cannot take into consideration what sort of questions — be it historical, legal, ethical or moral — are raised by the ongoing practice of using remote-controlled drones to kill insurgents and, in these instances, US citizens.
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22,” she writes. “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”
Throughout her ruling, Judge McMahon cites speeches from both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in which the al-Awlaki killings are vaguely discussed, but appear to do little more than excuse the administration’s behavior with their own secretive explanations.
“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential — but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a US citizen,” McMahon quotes Mr. Holder as saying during a March 2012 address at Chicago’s Northwestern University. “Holder did not identify which recent court decisions so held,” the judge replies, “Nor did he explain exactly what process was given to the victims of targeted killings at locations far from ‘hot’ battlefields… ”
And while both Mr. Holder and President Obama have discussed the killings in public, including one appearance by the president on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, the Justice Department insists that going further by releasing any legal evidence that supports the executions would be detrimental to national security.
While Judge McMahon ends up agreeing with the White House, she does so by making known her own weariness over how the Obama administration has forced the court to rely on their own insistence that information about the attacks simply cannot be discussed.
“As they gathered to draft a Constitution for their newly liberated country, the Founders — fresh from a war of independence from the rule of a King they styled a tyrant — were fearful of concentrating power in the hands of any single person or institution, and most particular in the executive,” McMahon writes.
Responding to the decision on Wednesday, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer issued a statement condemning the White House’s just-won ability to relieve itself from any fair and honest explanation as to the justification of Americans.
“This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of US citizens and also effectively green-lights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures,” Jameel writes. “As the judge acknowledges, the targeted killing program raises profound questions about the appropriate limits on government power in our constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know more about the circumstances in which the government believes it can lawfully kill people, including US citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime.”
The ACLU says they plan to appeal Judge McMahon’s decision and are currently awaiting news regarding a separate lawsuit filed alongside the Center for Constitutional Rights that directly challenges the constitutionality of the targeted kills.
“The government has argued that case should also be dismissed,” the ACLU notes.
In a Wednesday afternoon statement from the Times, assistant general counsel David McCraw says the paper will appeal the ruling as well.
“We began this litigation because we believed our readers deserved to know more about the US government’s legal position on the use of targeted killings against persons having ties to terrorism, including US citizens,” McCraw says.
Although she ruled against the plaintiffs, Judge McMahon, says McCraw, explained “eloquently … why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully.”
Related articles
- VIDEO: On CNN, Nasser Al-Awlaki Demands “Accountability” for U.S. Drone Strike That Killed His Grandson (alethonews.wordpress.com)
Obama continues rendition despite extensive condemnation of tactic
Press TV – January 2, 2013
US President Barack Obama’s administration is continuing rendition, the practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation without due process.
George Bush administration’s practice of rendition is continuing under the Obama administration despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
According to the US daily, it is unknown how many renditions have taken place during Obama’s first term due to the secrecy involved but his administration has not disavowed the practice.
In the latest example of Obama administration’s use of the tactic, a number of American interrogates visited three European men with Somali origins in a jail in the small African country of Djibouti. The detainees had been arrested on a vague pretext in August as they were passing through the African country.
US agents accused the three men of supporting Somalia’s al-Shabab group. The prisoners were secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York two months after their arrest. They were then clandestinely taken into custody by the FBI and flown to the United States to face trial.
The secret arrests and detentions became known on December 21, when the suspects appeared briefly in a Brooklyn courtroom.
The US government has revealed little about the circumstances of the arrests. The FBI and federal prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York have also not said where and why the defendants were detained.
Human rights advocates have condemned the Obama administration’s decision to continue rendition.
Obama, in his first presidential candidacy, had strongly suggested he might end the practice but the tactic is still continuing under his administration.
Related articles
2012 in Review: Blackout Protests Against Blacklist Bills
By Parker Higgins | EFF | January 1, 2013
Coming into 2012, the Internet community was looking down the barrel of very dangerous legislation that would have created legal structures to silence legitimate speech in the name of curbing online “piracy.” A House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), had been debated, amended, and looked to be on the fast track for legislative approval.
That all changed on January 18. An historic “Blackout Day” protest, loosely coordinated by a coalition of public interest groups, startups, tech companies, and thousands of different websites, resulted in millions of emails and tens of thousands of calls to legislators. As sites across the web turned out their virtual lights at once, an important but otherwise arcane copyright bill became front-page news—and impossible for the content lobby and their favorite legislators to sneak past the public.
There were plenty of reasons to be concerned. After all, Congress has passed 15 laws aimed at stopping “piracy” over the last 30 years—an impressive record given the general absence of actual facts about the problem or the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. And even after an earlier protest, held in November 2011, resulted in nearly 90,000 calls to Congress in one day, SOPA’s author (and Judiciary Committee chair) Lamar Smith seemed intent on pushing the bill through, dismissing the complaints as not being “legitimate.”
But support for the bills began to crumble when met with the magnitude of the blackout protests. Over the course of January 18, people sent nearly a million emails to their legislators through the EFF’s action center alone, and many million more through other sites. Some of the most popular sites on the Internet, like Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia, were among over 100,000 pages dark in protest.
It worked. Angry supporters of the bill may have derided the grassroots action—MPAA chief Chris Dodd called it “dangerous” and a “gimmick,” while RIAA CEO Cary Sherman said it was based on “misinformation” and, strangely, a “misuse of power”—but legislators got the message, and began jumping ship from SOPA and PIPA almost immediately. Within a month, the bills were effectively dead.
The defeat of SOPA and PIPA marked an important victory in an ongoing struggle for copyright policy that’s based on actual facts and real evidence. The January 18 protests, too, served as a template for a new era of online activism. In 2012, we’ve already seen similar battles play out all over the world; in 2013, we’re sure to see even more.
Related articles
- U.S. Congress may not have stomach for another SOPA/PIPA fight (pcworld.com)
- Looking forward: The fight for Internet freedom (rappler.com)
Israeli Offer to Palestinian Families: Take $500,000 and Leave West Bank
Al-Manar | January 2, 2013
A Zionist Likud hardliner suggested paying Palestinian families $500,000 each to emigrate from the West Bank to the West.
Moshe Feiglin, who earlier on Tuesday was detained by Israeli police after trying to pray at the so-called Temple Mount, proposed paying Palestinians to leave West Bank.
“The State of Israel is paying 10% of its GNP every year for the two-state solution and the Oslo Accords. It’s paying for separation fences, Iron Domes and a guard at every café. Soon we’ll have to place Iron Domes in every school in Tel Aviv.
“With this budget we can give every Arab family in Judea and Samaria $500,000 to encourage it to immigrate to a place with a better future.
“You may say, ‘But no one will have them.’ That’s not true because the Western nations are shrinking due to low birth rates. The question is whether the world will have Sudanese migrants who can’t build or migrants from Judea and Samaria who do know how to build.”
Related articles
- Israel forces Jordan Valley Palestinians from homes ahead of war drill (alethonews.wordpress.com)
Local activist detained in Hebron
International Solidarity Movement | January 2, 2013
West Bank – Israeli soldiers in Hebron tied up and blindfolded a Palestinian activist this afternoon because he walked on the ‘Jewish side’ of the road.
Issa Amro, coordinator for Youth Against Settlements, was detained on Shuhada Street, sections of which are segregated with the majority reserved for the illegal Israeli settlers and Israeli military, leaving only a tiny portion open for Palestinian use.
Issa claimed he wasn’t walking in the Israeli only section of the road and that the soldier became infuriated when he told him to check the rules with a commanding officer. The soldier then told Issa he would be detained for 2 hours, however, he was released after 20 minutes. Issa believes that one of the illegal settlers had instructed the soldier to harass him.
Locals, members of the press and international activists turned up and the soldiers refused to answer questions about why he was being detained, or let anyone bring him water. One soldier then forced the crowd to stay 25 metres away.
Palestinians, Israeli soldiers and illegal settlers are always in close proximity in Shuhada Street and as a result it is an extremely volatile area of the city. On Sunday, Israeli soldiers extended a section of the apartheid road near the Ibrahimi Mosque. The newly constructed barrier runs past a Palestinian home due to be rebuilt meaning that when it is finished, Palestinians will have only half a metre to walk on.
Local activist Issa Amro detained in Shuhada Street in Hebron
Related articles
- Israeli forces kill teenager on his 17th birthday in Hebron (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- Army Kidnaps Four Palestinians In Hebron (imemc.org)
- Israeli military conducts illegal operations in Tel Rumeida, Hebron (palsolidarity.org)
- Second group of journalists beaten in Hebron (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- Settlers raid Nablus village homes and a tractor. Uproot 190 olive trees and burn Hebron car (occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com)
Israeli forces attack Tammun, four injured from live bullets
International Solidarity Movement | January 2, 2013
Tammun, Occupied Palestine – From 9am to 6pm Israeli special forces, regular army and border police attacked the village of Tammun, south of Jenin. They used helicopters, many soldiers firing live rounds of ammunition, tear gas and plastic coated steel bullets. 35 people were injured, including 4 with live bullets. 2 children sustained serious head injuries from tear gas canisters.
The raid began with at least 15 plain clothed special forces driving into the village in Palestinian plated vehicles to arrest a man. They forced the family out of their home, took one Palestinian brother, Murad, tied him, blindfolded him, pushed him against the wall and took him back into the house. They made the family stand outside as human shields against any resistance to the incursion and, in doing so, committed a war crime. His brother, Mohammed, was forced to assume a stress position for two hours. When he told the soldiers that had a health problem with his chest, they replied that if he said that again they would beat him to death.
The forces interrogated and beat Murad while blindfolded. These special forces, called Duvdevan, are known for targeted assassinations. Murad was told to climb over a wall, but fearing that this could be an excuse to kill him, he refused. The soldiers severely beat him for this.
The soldiers vandalised the house, breaking furniture and shooting walls, wardrobes, beds, mirrors and a fridge.
Last year the same family was raided by these forces. The two brothers were stripped naked and tied to an olive tree in their front garden.
Today, soldiers entered another home. They searched it, broke furniture and shot around the house as well. They threatened the mother that if her husband doesn’t hand himself in, in 24 hours, they will kill him. Another 20 homes were searched in the village.
After the plain clothes special forces entered the village around 20 jeeps of regular army followed. They went into houses and took positions on rooftops.
Resistance by the population to this erupted on news of the incursion and people were attacked. Paramedics reported 35 injuries, two serious head wounds from tear gas canisters that are often used as baton rounds. The two head injuries were inflicted on children. Four of the injuries were from live rounds.
The attack continued until after dark with the army using parachute flares to illuminate the village.
The army eventually left the village at 6pm with Murad. The other Palestinian wanted by the Israeli occupation force has until tomorrow morning to hand himself in or he will be assassinated.