Judge Says Government Can Continue To Refuse To Acknowledge Certain Drone Strike Documents
from the no-hard-truth-left-unhidden dept
Documents pertaining to the accidental killing of two men by US drone strikes in Yemen can continue to remain unacknowledged by the agencies guiding the strikes.
A federal judge has ruled the CIA and Defense Department (DOD) do not have to confirm or deny whether they have records on the “factual basis for the killing” of either Samir Khan or Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were killed in two separate drone strikes in September and October of 2011.The heavily-redacted order does contain some good news, however. The presiding judge ordered the Dept. of Defense and the CIA to turn over FOIAed documents to the ACLU that contain "previously acknowledged facts," thus preventing the Dept. of Justice from turning real life into a bizarre fantasy world where previously disclosed information can be treated as though it was still locked up in the agency's "TOP SECRET" digital filing cabinet.
But the obvious downside is this: because the government has been given permission to avoid confirming or denying the existence of the documents the ACLU is seeking, the search for more information on accidental deaths and collateral damage will still consist of issuing speculative FOIA requests, which will then result in more lengthy, expensive litigation.
I'm pretty sure the involved agencies believe they can outlast FOIA requesters, especially if they continue to receive mostly-favorable decisions from judges who place more faith in the government and its assertions about national security than in those who view government secrecy with considerably more skepticism. The problem is that the government has the resources to fight long legal battles. Most FOIA requesters do not.
This decision also further insulates the government from the repercussions of its own actions. By allowing the agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of these documents, it gives the government permission to deflect further inquiries into the oversight governing drone strikes -- and what it does when it suspects a strike has killed the wrong people.
If one accepts the government’s claims that Khan and Abdulrahman’s deaths were “accidental,” one at least has to believe the government did some kind of review after the strikes once they recognized two US citizens had been killed. This is what the ACLU suspects.This sort of information is definitely of the "public interest" variety and should be given more heft when weighed against national security concerns. The American public isn't necessarily supportive of this highly-secret program and considering its complete lack of say in the matter, the least it should be given is the opportunity to more closely examine the accountability process.
The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have pursued a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the strikes, which killed the three US citizens. And, in this lawsuit, the ACLU has challenged the right of the government to keep information related to their deaths secret.
Instead, the opinion allows the government to redact much of what it can't Glomar into nonexistence with the most abused FOIA exemption: b(5). Nominally for "deliberative process" documents only, the exemption has expanded to cover almost anything the government doesn't want to (immediately) reveal. About the only way to remove a b(5) exemption is through the courts -- an expensive process with low odds of success.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abdulrahman al-awlaki, cia, dod, doj, drone strikes, foia, samir khan
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know law enforcement would just say, "if the criminals know what we are doing they will do something different," but wouldn't it also be likely that some criminals would just say, "fuck it, I'll just get a real job cuz those cops are everywhere."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as with the thousands who are murdered by IS in non-western countries.
If an american or european dies its news all over but noone cares when the US drops bombs on kids or gives weapons to crazy fucktards like the IS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confirmed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well I'm sure that won't be abused...
Sure glad they've got rules in place to limit collateral deaths, and ensure that only specific targets, with heaps of evidence against them are targeted by drone strikes, otherwise they might accidentally kill innocent people and then try and cover it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only thing transparent about the Obama Administration is their ability to shovel horseshit toward the American People.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would we feel
Just think about that for a second.
This is what we are doing to people that if they are male and above 8 or so, we say were guilty and deserved what they got.
I do not agree with this.
If we want to have a war, make it a war.
A war btw is a specific legal thing that has a real declared enemy not some concept. It also has a beginning, middle and end.
There is no unlimited secret budget and there are rules we have to follow.
Some of those rules include the Geneva Conventions.
This would limit us from doing things like keeping people in jail and torturing them for as long as we want.
It would also keep the public informed about what is being done in our name.
This is our country and yet whatever is being done in our name is too inflammatory for the video and documentation to be revealed. The problem there isn't revealing it and letting people react. It was doing those heinous acts in the first place and still thinking we have any moral authority left to do anything outside of our own boarders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government does what it wants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]