

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A federal appeals court on Monday morning is demanding that the Obama administration disclose their legal justification for the targeted drone killing program.
Reversing a lower court ruling in The New York Times Company v. United States, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the release of portions of a classified Justice Department memo that provided the legal justification for the targeted drone killing of United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director, who argued the case before the panel in October.
"The government can't legitimately claim that everything about the targeted killing program is a classified secret while senior officials selectively disclose information meant to paint the program in the most favorable light," Jaffer continued. "The public has a right to know why the administration believes it can carry out targeted killings of American citizens who are located far away from any conventional battlefield."
The issues in this ruling "assume added importance because the information sought concerns targeted killings of United States citizens carried out by drone aircraft," wrote Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman in the ruling.
The panel argued that the government had waived its right to keep their legal memo secret following public statements by officials and the Justice Department's release of a "white paper" to Congress explaining their legal rationale.
"Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had," Newman continued, "has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the D.O.J. White Paper."
The ruling stemmed from lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Times and two of its reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, along with the ACLU. A ruling in January 2013 dismissed the FOIA request on the premise of national security.
"The public has a right to know the circumstances in which the U.S. government believes it can kill people, including American citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, in a previous statement about the FOIA suit.
Shamsi continued:
The targeted killing program raises serious questions about government power in a constitutional democracy. Our system of government requires transparency about what the executive branch is doing, especially in matters of life and death, not the selective and inadequate disclosures that we have seen so far. Obama administration officials repeatedly insist that the targeted killing program is lawful, effective, and closely supervised, while simultaneously telling courts that the records on which their claims are based must be kept secret from the public. The government cannot and should not have it both ways.
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A federal appeals court on Monday morning is demanding that the Obama administration disclose their legal justification for the targeted drone killing program.
Reversing a lower court ruling in The New York Times Company v. United States, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the release of portions of a classified Justice Department memo that provided the legal justification for the targeted drone killing of United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director, who argued the case before the panel in October.
"The government can't legitimately claim that everything about the targeted killing program is a classified secret while senior officials selectively disclose information meant to paint the program in the most favorable light," Jaffer continued. "The public has a right to know why the administration believes it can carry out targeted killings of American citizens who are located far away from any conventional battlefield."
The issues in this ruling "assume added importance because the information sought concerns targeted killings of United States citizens carried out by drone aircraft," wrote Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman in the ruling.
The panel argued that the government had waived its right to keep their legal memo secret following public statements by officials and the Justice Department's release of a "white paper" to Congress explaining their legal rationale.
"Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had," Newman continued, "has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the D.O.J. White Paper."
The ruling stemmed from lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Times and two of its reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, along with the ACLU. A ruling in January 2013 dismissed the FOIA request on the premise of national security.
"The public has a right to know the circumstances in which the U.S. government believes it can kill people, including American citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, in a previous statement about the FOIA suit.
Shamsi continued:
The targeted killing program raises serious questions about government power in a constitutional democracy. Our system of government requires transparency about what the executive branch is doing, especially in matters of life and death, not the selective and inadequate disclosures that we have seen so far. Obama administration officials repeatedly insist that the targeted killing program is lawful, effective, and closely supervised, while simultaneously telling courts that the records on which their claims are based must be kept secret from the public. The government cannot and should not have it both ways.
_____________________
A federal appeals court on Monday morning is demanding that the Obama administration disclose their legal justification for the targeted drone killing program.
Reversing a lower court ruling in The New York Times Company v. United States, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the release of portions of a classified Justice Department memo that provided the legal justification for the targeted drone killing of United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director, who argued the case before the panel in October.
"The government can't legitimately claim that everything about the targeted killing program is a classified secret while senior officials selectively disclose information meant to paint the program in the most favorable light," Jaffer continued. "The public has a right to know why the administration believes it can carry out targeted killings of American citizens who are located far away from any conventional battlefield."
The issues in this ruling "assume added importance because the information sought concerns targeted killings of United States citizens carried out by drone aircraft," wrote Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman in the ruling.
The panel argued that the government had waived its right to keep their legal memo secret following public statements by officials and the Justice Department's release of a "white paper" to Congress explaining their legal rationale.
"Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had," Newman continued, "has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the D.O.J. White Paper."
The ruling stemmed from lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Times and two of its reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, along with the ACLU. A ruling in January 2013 dismissed the FOIA request on the premise of national security.
"The public has a right to know the circumstances in which the U.S. government believes it can kill people, including American citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, in a previous statement about the FOIA suit.
Shamsi continued:
The targeted killing program raises serious questions about government power in a constitutional democracy. Our system of government requires transparency about what the executive branch is doing, especially in matters of life and death, not the selective and inadequate disclosures that we have seen so far. Obama administration officials repeatedly insist that the targeted killing program is lawful, effective, and closely supervised, while simultaneously telling courts that the records on which their claims are based must be kept secret from the public. The government cannot and should not have it both ways.
_____________________