Quantcast
Connect with us

Court orders U.S. to release legal memo that authorized drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki

Published

on

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government’s targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public’s right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

These included a Justice Department “white paper,” as well as speeches or statements by officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and former Obama administration counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, endorsing the practice.

The Times and two reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, sought the memorandum under the federal Freedom of Information Act, saying it authorized the targeting of al-Awlaki, a cleric who joined al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate and directed many attacks.

“Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper,” Circuit Judge Jon Newman wrote for the appeals court panel in New York.

He said it was no longer logical or plausible to argue that disclosing the legal analysis in the memorandum jeopardizes military plans, intelligence activities or foreign relations. The court redacted a portion of the memorandum on intelligence gathering.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is unclear whether the government will appeal, or when the memorandum might be made public.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said the newspaper is delighted with the decision, saying it encourages public debate on an important foreign policy and national security issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The court reaffirmed a bedrock principle of democracy: The people do not have to accept blindly the government’s assurances that it is operating within the bounds of the law; they get to see for themselves the legal justification that the government is working from,” McCraw said in a statement.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Monday’s decision largely reversed a January 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan.

ADVERTISEMENT

She ruled for the administration despite skepticism over its antiterrorism program, including whether it could unilaterally authorize killings outside a “hot” field of battle.

“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” she wrote.

Civil liberties groups have complained that the drone program, which deploys pilotless aircraft, lets the government kill Americans without constitutionally required due process.

ADVERTISEMENT

McMahon ruled one month before the Justice Department released the white paper, which set out conditions to be met before lethal force in foreign countries against U.S. citizens could be used.

In a March 5, 2012 speech at Northwestern University, Holder had said it was “entirely lawful” to target people with senior operational roles in al-Qaeda and associated forces.

The Times has said the strategy of targeted killings had first been contemplated by the Bush administration, soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union supported the Times’ appeal of McMahon’s ruling. Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the ACLU, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

The case is New York Times Co et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-422, 13-445.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

[“Predator Type Rq1 Drones 3d Artwork” on Shutterstock]


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s why Mike Bloomberg’s laid off campaign workers are getting smaller paychecks than they thought

Published

on

Since suspending his campaign, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken heat for firing a number of campaign staffers he had promised would have jobs until November — even if he didn't win the nomination. People who were enticed to work for Bloomberg's campaign with generous salaries and benefits, who expected steady income for a year, are suddenly and unexpectedly without a job in the middle of a deadly pandemic and crippling economic downturn.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Dr. Anthony Fauci given Secret Service protection after threats and ‘fervent admirers’

Published

on

Dr. Anthony Fauci was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill infectious-diseases expert at the National Institute of Health until the coronavirus hit and he was brought into the task force. Now he's getting threats against his life.

Americans might be dodging the contagious COVID-19 but Dr. Fauci is facing an additional threat, the Washington Post reported Wednesday. As a result, he's been giving security protection while he's trying to save lives.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump blows up at Fox News reporter for asking him about disbanding pandemic team

Published

on

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump lost his temper at a coronavirus press briefing when Fox News correspondent John Roberts asked him about his administration disbanding the pandemic response team.

"We didn't do that. That turned out to be a false story," said Trump. (It is not a false story.) "Now you're starting to go — are you working for CNN?"

"I'm pointing out what they have said and what you have said, that's all," said Roberts.

"Fox isn't so easy either, don't kid yourself," whined Trump. "Look, John, let me tell you something. You know that's a false story. What you just said is a false story, this doctor knows it better than anybody ... you shouldn't be repeating a story that you know is false."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image