Drones

The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.

The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.

 
Outside of armed conflict zones, the use of lethal force is strictly limited by international law and, when it comes to U.S. citizens, the Constitution. Specifically, lethal force can be used only as a last resort against an imminent threat to life. Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the U. S. Regardless of the context, whenever the government uses lethal force, it must take all possible steps to avoid harming civilian bystanders. These are not the standards that the executive branch is using.
 
The U.S. continues to carry out illegal targeted killings in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. The government must be held to account when it carries out such killings in violation of the Constitution and international law.

ACLU Litigation
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta: On July 18, 2012, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. The suit charges that the U.S. government’s killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen in 2011 violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
 
Freedom of Information Act Cases:
Targeted Killing FOIA: On February 1, 2012, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information about the targeted killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen in September and October 2011: Anwar al-Awlaki; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki; and Samir Khan. The lawsuit seeks disclosure of the legal memorandum written by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that provided justifications for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi, as well as records describing the factual basis for the killings of all three Americans. In response, the government has refused to confirm or deny whether it killed these three citizens or even whether the CIA has a targeted killing program, despite numerous statements by U.S. officials to the media about the program.

Drone FOIA: In March 2010, the ACLU filed a FOIA lawsuit demanding that the government disclose basic information about the use of drones to conduct targeted killings. The lawsuit seeks disclosure of the legal basis, scope, and limits on the targeted killing program; information pertaining to the training, supervision, oversight, or discipline of UAV operators and others involved in the decision to execute a targeted killing using a drone; and data about the number of civilians and non-civilians killed in drone strikes. In response, the CIA has refused to even confirm or deny whether it has a drone program.
 
Al-Majalah Civilian Deaths FOIA: On April 17, 2012, the ACLU and CCR submitted a FOIA request seeking information about a December 2009 U.S. missile strike on a community in the al-Majalah region of the Abyan province of Yemen. The attack, which was the Obama administration's first known missile strike in Yemen, apparently targeted alleged “militants” but killed dozens of civilians, including at least 21 children. The U.S. government has yet to release basic information about the strike.

 

This Week in Civil Liberties (5/4/2012)

By Rekha Arulanantham, ACLU at 4:41pm

What surveillance tool used by law enforcement could lead to nightmarish privacy infringement?

This week, the White House confirmed the existence of what program that has been kept secret by the CIA?

“Liking” on what social network is not protected by the First Amendment, according to a federal judge in Virginia?

Which state wants to replace one private prison contractor with another?

Which state is being sued by an ACLU affiliate for its discriminatory voter ID law?

Further Reflections About John Brennan's Targeted Killing Speech

By Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU at 11:48am

The president's chief counterterrorism advisor delivered a speech yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. We issued a first reaction here. Here are some further thoughts:

White House Confirms Existence of Targeted Killing Program

By Ateqah Khaki at 2:59pm

Today, the New York Times ran an ACLU op-ed about the CIA's misuse of secrecy to withhold information from the public about the agency's targeted killing program, which has so far killed thousands of people, including several Americans.

The piece, penned by ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer and National Security Project Legal Fellow Nathan Wessler, explains that in ACLU lawsuits about the drone strike program the CIA has consistently taken the position that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the program or any records related to it, despite the fact that numerous other government officials have spoken about the program to the public and the press. The op-ed states,

Calling Out the CIA for Its Secrecy Game on Targeted Killing

By Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 6:21pm

Today Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times published a thoughtful column discussing the untenable position taken by the government in response to the ACLU's two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking information about the CIA's targeted killing drone strike program, including its targeting of U.S. citizens. As Rosenthal explains, "the government is blocking any consideration of these petitions with one of the oldest, and most pathetic, dodges in the secrecy game. It says it cannot confirm or deny the existence of any drone strike policy or program."

Broad Spectrum of Organizations Support ACLU Legal Fight for Transparency on U.S. Drone Program

By Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 4:29pm

Today, nine organizations submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about the CIA's use of drones to carry out targeted killings around the world.  The organizations work on a diverse array of issues that don't always overlap, including international human rights and rule of law, government transparency, investigative journalism, civil liberties and national security policy.  Although some of these groups seldom have occasion to collaborate, they joined together to urge the court to reject the CIA's position that it can't confirm whether it has a drone strike program at all.

Drone Strikes Filing Today: Appealing the CIA's Attempt to Hide the Worst-Kept Secret in the World

By Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 3:17pm

Today the ACLU filed its appeal brief in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about the CIA's use of drones to carry out targeted killings around the world. Like in our separate FOIA case seeking information about the legal and factual basis for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, the CIA takes the position in this lawsuit that it can neither confirm nor deny whether it has a drone strike program at all. This is despite the fact that the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice all responded that they do in fact have documents on the program. As we told the court today, the CIA's position is simply untenable.

VIDEO: See What Armed Domestic Drones Look Like

By Josh Bell, Media Strategist, ACLU at 4:09pm

A big worry about U.S. law enforcement’s expanding use of drones is the lack of rules protecting from privacy violations. But drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote controlled aircraft with non-lethal (for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas. This eye-opening new video from The Daily takes a closer look:

mytubethumbplay
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

VIDEO: Presidential Power and the Targeted Killing Debate

By Josh Bell, Media Strategist, ACLU at 5:34pm

The Obama administration’s strained defense of its targeted killing program is continuing to make people think long and hard about the government’s asserted authority to mark an American for death without any judicial oversight whatsoever.

Today the first hour of NPR’s On Point was devoted to this issue, along with the general expansion of authority claimed by the executive branch since 9/11. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero debated Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith, who worked in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. You can listen here.

VIDEO: Holder Talks About Targeted Killing Program While DOJ Says It Can't

By Josh Bell, Media Strategist, ACLU at 7:55pm

On Monday the Obama administration made its latest attempt to defend the government’s targeted killing program. Attorney General Eric Holder provided the most detailed public discussion yet of the program, but disappointingly took the “trust us” approach, essentially arguing that the American public should trust the executive branch when it says that the targeted killing program (including the killing of U.S. citizens) complies with the constitution and international law, and that no judicial review of the administration’s legal standards, process, or evidence is required.

In Targeted Killing Speech, Holder Mischaracterizes Debate Over Judicial Review

By Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 7:34pm

In a system of constitutional checks and balances, it simply cannot be the case that the executive branch alone should determine whether U.S. citizens have the right to due process.

Statistics image