EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
For Christmas, Your Government Will Tell You When It's Legal to Kill You. Just Kidding: It's Classified

In the wake of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the DOJ has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times asking for the legal basis for the American program of targeted drone killings of U.S. citizens off the field of battle. A lay-person's look at that decision.
Plaintiffs The New York Times Company, Charlie Savage, and Scott Shane (jointly, "NYT"), by their undersigned attorney, allege for their Complaint:
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") ... seeking the production of agency records improperly withheld by Defendant United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") in response to requests properly made by Plaintiffs.
***
4. Given the questions surrounding the legality of the practice [of "targeted killing"] under both U.S. and international law, notable legal scholars, human rights activists, and current and former government officials [i.e., Democrats and Republicans] have called for the government to disclose its legal analysis justifying the use of targeted lethal force, especially as it applies to American citizens.
***
11. Both before and after the death of [Anwar] al-Awlaki [who was blown up in Yemen], NYT duly filed FOIA requests seeking memoranda that detail the legal analysis behind [blowing people up]. To date, DOJ has refused to release any such memoranda or any segregable portions, claiming them to be properly classified and privileged and in respect to certain memoranda has declined to say whether they in fact exist.
***
35. On September 30, 2011, the Washington Post described a [DOJ] "secret memorandum authorizing the legal targeting" of al-Awlaki, an American citizen accused of coordinating the Al-Qaeda operations in the Arabian peninsula. The article said that officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis" such as "how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process." It also quoted a "former senior intelligence official" as saying the C.I.A. "would not have killed an American without such a written opinion."
***
44. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Savage submitted a FOIA request [to] DOJ OLC seeking a copy of "all Office of Legal Counsel memorandums analyzing the circumstances under which it would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist."
45. By letter dated October 27, 2011, [DOJ] denied Mr. Savage's request.
Summary:
- The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,
- who, though a total dick and probably a criminal, may have been engaged only in propaganda,
- which, though despicable, is generally protected by the First Amendment;
- it did so without a trial or even an indictment (that we know of),
- based at least in part on evidence it says it has but won't show anyone,
- and on a legal argument it has apparently made but won't show anyone,
- and the very existence of which it will not confirm or deny;
- although don't worry, because the C.I.A. would never kill an American without having somebody do a memo first;
- and this is the "most transparent administration ever";
- currently run by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

14 Comments so far
Show AllIn other words, the Obomber administration decided to murder a man to look good. Same with Osama.
IDIOT...GOP Patsy, Dupe
Murder a man to look good? Yes, although, in the case of Osama, you can't really kill a dead man. Someone was murdered, but not likely OBL.
Sickening.
This perspective is fronted by Obama to be American? A national disgrace- needs to be condemned widely by all. Immoral and an affront to our nation.
Wait a minute here. You mean that a President ordering the killing of a human being - American citizen or otherwise - is NOT o.k.?? Oh please. We live in a DEMOCRACY. We are the Greatest Country On Earth (TM). We are the Good Guys (TM). Therefore, by that logic alone, anything the President does - be it ordering an invasion of a sovereign nation, sending spy drones into another nation's sovereign airspace, or ordering the assassination of a U.S. citizen without Due Process - is not only NOT illegal, it is pure homespun, Amereichan-democratic-freedomy goodness and wholesomeness.
So there.
"If the president does it, that means it is not illegal." --Richard M. Nixon
I think that quote comes from Alberto Gonzalez, who was advising G.W. Bush.
if so - he stole it from nixon.
We are exceptional because we are exceptional because...
What is it that Obomber and Congress can't stop the wanking contest on who is more patriotic for being most willing to do away with the only thing that really makes us the USA, our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Endless war?... must be patriarchy's endgame.
Remember when HW Bush killed 5000 people to arrest one man. So what's new?
How is terrorizing the nation advancing the "war on terrorism"?
Along these lines, I have a new headache remedy: put a bullet in your brain.
I have something to say to my government. For the incidents of mass murder perpetrated on the American people, and for Janet Napolitano and the congress' and the president's complicity, and as accesories after the fact, in the cover-up and escape from justice of the government's perps and their foreign agents in these crimes, I am here to tell YOU that YOU are the identity of parties guilty of capital crimes against the people and these United Staes or for others are accesories and warrant prosecution and appropriate proscribed punishments for same. You have not relented, apologized, nor paused in the humility of prayer for your murderous transgressions. I therefore suggest consideration of the death penalty unless you come up with some more names, FAST,
(Great-great grandpa Joseph Lewis, was the first Washington terrritorial judge and I was named after his son, a court clerk. They would turn in their graves at the cowardice and gutter-behavior of most of congress and the American people.)
give back the peace prize and get two tragic trophies