ACLU sues Obama administration under Freedom of Information Act

The ACLU is suing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The group seeks information on the guidelines Obama officials use in deciding on targets to be killed in drone attacks.

The request “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 killing”. The administration has refused to provide any information on these issues. The CIA is insisting to federal courts that it is unable even to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program.The CIA argues that revealing any of that information would endanger national security. This is such astonishing nonsense that it is almost beyond belief.

Consider this! A number of Obama administration officials have publicly not only recognised the existence of the program but praised it as being effective. Obama recently said:“we are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” and and the program is “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.” Former CIA Director and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also spoke about the program noting that the drone program has “been very effective at undermining al Qaeda and their ability to plan those kinds of attacks.” Finally Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech tried to justify the program in legal terms.Should not all these officials be prosecuted for endangering the national security of the U.S. by revealing all this about a drone attack program that cannot be admitted even to exist?

Obama administration officials are free to say whatever they like about the program for their own political ends. But when the public seeks basic information it cannot be revealed for reasons of national security. For much more see the full article in Salon.

Glenn Greenwald on Holder's defense of targeted killing of U.S. citizens

Writing in Salon Glenn Greenwald has a long article criticising Attorney General's Eric Holder defense of the practice of targeted killing used by the Obama administration.

As Greenwald points out a citizen (or anyone else) can be targeted to be wiped out by the CIA by drones, special forces or whatever means without being charged, notified of their status, or having any opportunity to do anything in their defense. Suspects are simply condemned to death. There is no transparency in the process or judicial oversight.

Critics note that Holder's speech contained no footnotes nor legal citations. Holder says that some people argue that the president should get permission from a court before they "take action" against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qeada or associated forces. Taking action is a euphemism for targeted killing however the more exact terminology is not allowed into Holder's speech. Holder wants the background frame to be that of a war. However in Obamatalk that terminology is banned as well even though war is the legal framework from which Holder argues. Holder argues that what the U.S. constitution guarantees is due process rather than legal process. Greenwald then goes on to spell out what this due process is in fact.

The phrase someone "who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces," means someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence.

U.S. citizens are placed on a kill or capture list by a panel of senior officials who are members of the White House National Security Council. The panel then informs the president of the names on the list. Decisions of the panel or any record of its operations are never made public. There is not even any law that establishes the panel or that sets out any rules for its operation. This is what Holder calls due process under the U.S. constitution. If a Bush official had spouted tripe such as this there would be a huge uproar.

The president makes the ultimate decision as to whether anyone on the list is killed or not killed. Greenwald gives a caustic summary of this so-called due process:"The President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you? ""

This is just a sample from Greenwald's long article. Greenwald points out that if justifications such as Holder gives were presented under the Bush administration every Liberal Democrat would be up in arms and outraged at the violation of the rights of U.S. citizens. But in an election year with Obama as president few liberals are speaking out. In fact the most caustic criticism of targeted killing of Americans has come from libertarians such as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. For more see the full article.

Obama and Holder: Perils of the middle road..

Cheney apparently has never heard that many ethicists are quite critical of the principle that the end justifies the means. The principle is obviously in contradiction with the view that America will never torture and will always treat captured enemies humanely and in accord with International Law. If violating these values protects American lives than I guess it is just fine. Take any of the rhetorically inflated key US values and then note that if violating them saves American lives it will be OK to do so. What crapola that passes for argument without even a hint of dissension. The critics simply say: Oh but there is no proof that the methods did save American lives. Nevertheless even if Cheney is right as he very well could be surely it does not settle whether the methods are justifiable.
I wonder how closely Holder is co-ordinating his decisions with what Obama wants. If this article is correct then neither the right nor the left will be happy with the process and Obama will probably sink even further in the polls. Holder has managed to spook the right and the CIA spooks but by not going after any higher ups who probably approved much of what was done he makes the left angry as well. He might as well have gone further. This would be fairer also to those being investigated who in many cases will claim they were simply carrying out orders--and they no doubt were in many cases. The middle ground that Holder is taking is hardly safe or popular in this case. It is the least popular option he could take and certainly occupies no moral high ground to boot.

Interrogation probe steams those on right and left
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Conservatives and liberals alike reacted critically, though for different reasons, to Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to appoint a federal prosecutor to investigate possible abuses by CIA interrogators in using harsh tactics on terror detainees.
Conservatives, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, said the probe wrongly targeted those who helped keep the nation safe after the Sept. 11 attacks and would diminish the ability of the government to safeguard Americans. Civil liberties groups were unhappy that officials from the administration of President George W. Bush were not targeted in the probe.
Holder on Monday appointed federal prosecutor John Durham to look into abuse allegations after the release of an internal CIA inspector general's report that revealed agency interrogators once threatened to kill a Sept. 11 suspect's children and suggested another would be forced to watch his mother be sexually assaulted.
President Barack Obama has said interrogators would not face charges if they followed legal guidelines. However, the report said that some CIA interrogators went beyond Bush administration restrictions that gave them wide latitude to use severe tactics such as waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique. Three high-level suspects underwent waterboarding scores of times.
Obama's caveat has not satisfied Cheney, who claimed earlier this year that the Obama administration is making the nation less secure by dismantling Bush-era initiatives aimed at disrupting terrorist plans. He repeated the assertion Monday, saying the Justice Department probe and a new FBI unit to handle interrogations were "a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."
"The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al-Qaida to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States," Cheney said. "The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions."
Cheney contended that the inspector general's report showed that the severe techniques resulted in "the bulk of intelligence we gained about al-Qaida" and "saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks."
Although the report somewhat buttressed Cheney's contention by saying the interrogations obtained some information that identified terrorists and plots, the inspector general also raised broad concerns about the legality and effectiveness of the tactics, saying that measuring their success is "a more subjective process and not without some concern."
Cheney and others have warned that opening investigations into incidents outlined by the CIA report will destroy morale at the agency and discourage its staff from aggressive intelligence work on terror cases.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the announcement of a special prosecutor a "poor and misguided decision," noting that the cases of abuse have already been reviewed and passed on by federal prosecutors.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the investigation will be a distraction to the spy agency. Rep. Peter King of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, called Holder's decision "disgraceful."
The CIA interrogators "should be given medals for saving American lives," King said Tuesday.
Several key Democrats and officials with Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday that the potential prosecutions are a start, but they said the probe does nothing to investigate the actions of officials who sanctioned the brutal interrogation program.
"Any investigation at this point is welcome," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But any investigation that begins and ends with the so-called rogue interrogators would be completely inadequate given the evidence that's already in the public domain. We know that senior officials authorized torture and we know that DOJ lawyers facilitated torture."
Amnesty International-USA was similarly unimpressed. Tom Parker, its director of terrorism, counterterrorism and human rights, likened limiting the prosecutions to interrogators to "going after the drug mule and leaving the drug king pin alone."
Parker met with the White House's outreach office Tuesday and told the AP that officials made Obama's stand on the matter clear: An investigation into the previous administration's policies is not in the cards.
"He doesn't think it will be politically useful to indulge in an investigation," Parker said.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Justice Department inquiry doesn't go far enough.
"The abuses that were officially sanctioned amounted to torture and those at the very top who authorized, ordered or sought to provide legal cover for them should be held accountable," Feingold said in a statement issued late Monday.
___
Associated Press writer Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.