Wednesday, December 21, 2011

For Christmas, Your Government Will Explain Why It's Legal to Kill You

Ha! Just kidding! It won't tell you that. That's classified!
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.
  • 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.
Merry Christmas!
From Lowering the Bar which is fast becoming one of my favorite blogs. He really needs to open it up for comments though.

Of the seven Republicans and one Democrat currently running for President of the United States, all but one think this is just fine. Guess which one thinks it's Bull $&^#?


David Garner said...

Guess which one thinks it's Bull $&^#?

Rick Perry!


Heracleides said...

No, the (other) nutter from Texas.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

The US is a deracinated nation-state that considers itself a purely administrative, globalist entity. Hence, the loyalties of its governors are not to the rights of a distinct people, but to the necessities of an international global order. The whole world is invited, so the whole world must be invaded to preserve this order. Moammar Gaddafi, the Weaver family, David Koresh, Bashar Assad, everybody is a potential enemy on the planetary battlefield.

The plain truth is somebody like Al-Awlaki should never have been granted citizenship. He would rightly be regarded as what he was: a Muslim Yemeni from a culture antithetically opposed to the American ethos. He was no more capable of being American than I am capable of being Saudi, regardless of where his mother happened to give birth.