ACLU files FOIA for Predator drone missions
For some reason, the ACLU has decided that it’s their business to approve our tactics against terrorists and have insinuated themselves into our war policy by filing a Freedom of Information Act request in regards to our drone program;
The ACLU believes that the use and proliferation of this tactic must be the subject of public scrutiny and debate. But the government has released essentially no information about the legal basis of and limits on the drone program, or its scope and consequences. The public has been kept in the dark and is therefore unable to assess the wisdom or legality of the strikes. Commentators on all sides agree that these are not questions that should be decided solely by technocrats behind closed doors.
In order to fill this void, the ACLU is asking the government to release basic information about its use of drones to execute targeted killings. In particular, we are seeking information about the legal basis for the drone program, including who may be targeted and the geographical limits on where drone strikes may occur. We are also asking for information about the scope and consequences of drone strikes, including a breakdown of the number of people killed, including the civilian casualty toll and the number of people killed who were fighters of the Afghan Taliban, al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or who had some other affiliation or status.
Yes, that’s what we need…the generals at ACLU dictating policy to the military. No, I don’t see anything wrong with first year law students pouring over our military operations applying their extensive knowledge of law to military policy.
Category: General Whackos, Politics, Usual Suspects
Let’m. I know for a fact that every target has legal review before it’s engaged. The real outrage is the post-facto legal review of targets engaged by units in contact. I am disgusted by our military “leadership” that attempts to prosecute individual Soldiers for their actions under fire. Not to mention the idiotic policy restricting the use of indirect fire and aviation assets to support units in contact. We have allowed our enemy to use propaganda to deny us our most important tactical advantage. THAT is asymetric warfare and THAT is where we are getting our asses handed to us on a paper plate.
. . . must be the subject of public scrutiny and debate
. . . legal basis
. . . The public has been kept in the dark and is therefore unable to assess the wisdom or legality of the strikes. Commentators on all sides agree that these are not questions that should be decided solely by technocrats behind closed doors.
W-T-F-!! As you said, Jonn, when did the ACLU decide to become the arbiters of military policy? This is supremely arrogant stupidity on steroids.
Solution? “Hi, you want to see more information on our overseas drone missions? Then come on over to Afghanistan, meet me at these map coordinates.”
Next day’s headlines: “Group of ACLU lawyers killed while waiting in open plains for military contact. Killers unknown at this time.”
(Pause for sound of massive applause from military)
Shakespeare was right about Lawyers….
I kinda like BWoodman’s solution to the problem. With the idea that the NYT reports on their trip and the location they’re going to. After all, the Times does like to print things about national security and the military, right?
This IS supremely arrogant stupidity of steroids.
Gunner! Target!
Ambulances in the open. Lawyers dismounted!
Load Flechette!
American Communist Lurking Underground (ACLU). File a FOIA for their membership list and supporters names. Listen to them scream.
My post at 11:17am is proof that one shouldn’t post until after the second cup of coffee, stupidity ON steroids.
I think Scrapiron has a great idea, but I doubt they’d comply, they’d probably ask Obama to keep it secret in the interests of national security.
I think somebody needs to ask the ACLU a few questions about the source of funds for their activities and the identity of their researchers.
Yeah really. It would be quite interesting to find out who the ACLU’s current financial supporters are, given that GITMO and the Predator drone stikes have absolutely nothing to do with AMERICAN civil liberties.
Little known fact – many members of the ACLU are not lawyers – just asshats. Further, not to be a pain, but…if you are going to use the Shakespeare quote, please get the context right. The argument was that if the rebellion was going to succeed, they had to get rid of the people educated to keep the process on track (see http://www.okbar.org/public/judges/spspeech.pdf). Now I admit, that the ACLU is a good idea (protect the bill of rights) gone horribly wrong. But then again, so are “veterans organizations” like IVAW. We don’t blame all veterans because Matthis is an asshat, please don’t blame all lawyers because the ACLU members are. Lawyers serve an important role in society (defend innocent SEALS from getting railroaded for instance). In our society, when someone offends us or harms us in some non-criminal way, we sue them. It may not be as satisfying as shooting them, but it is a bit more civilized (see contra, Afghanistan). A society without laws, and those who ensure the laws are followed, is not a society. (see id.) I agree that society has become a bit over litigious, but as a professor once told me, people don’t hate lawyers – people hate people and use lawyers as weapons. Now, to the matter at hand. If the One had any balls and was not owned by the plaintiff’s bar (who by the way, are generally the ones who fund the ACLU), he would tell them that the legal basis is that we are at war. When one is at war, the objective is to kill as many of the enemy as possible while minimizing the loss of life to our soldiers and innocent civilians. At the moment, the drones are an effective weapon for achieving that goal. (see stories re dead Tangos). He would have proper citations to common sense and use his best Harvard Law legalese. He would then remind them that classified information is not subject to FOIA and then tell them to have a nice day elsewhere. If he was really feeling bold, he would tell them… Read more »
Susan,
Is there any possibility that the ACLU receives funding from foreign sources?
Oh, but the ACLU HAS gotten federal funds. It has exploited the compensation rules by filing suits against the Federal Government, and if it wins, demanding that the Feds pay the ACLU’s expenses. The AQCLU has received a substantial amount of funding over the years through this simple tactic.
There is, as far as I know, no prohibition on foreign entities donating to US “charities.”
AW1 Tim, funding of litigation expenses as ordered by a court is not sufficient. It has to be federal grants to pull the ACLU under the purview of FOIA.
It would be funny to see their faces when the got a warehouse full of documents all blacked out. My wife, who is an attorney, rattled a bunch of legal stuff as to why they would only get a bunch of redacted documents. Basically, some government attorney could get months of work. The ACLU is just retarted.
Drone strikes really aren’t anything unique, when you think about it. Aside from the physical absence of a human pilot, how are they different from generations of strike craft? If that absence is taken as the defining feature, how are they different from NLOS weapons like artillery and cruise missiles?
My take is the ACLU is full of crap and just trying to take advantage of the “new and scary technology” reflex to extort information they have no bloody right to from the military. Of course, the fact that attacking the military’s right to use what amounts to a much better artillery strike and exposing targets thereof benefits only one party, but that should come as no surprise.
I say if they want the documents, give them to the ACLU, delivered to their headquarters.
Via Hellfire missile.
[…] This ain’t Hell…. highlights the latest stupidity from the ACLU regarding the War On Terrorism […]
So seeing that there is no ban on foreign entities donating to organizations such as the ACLU, Al Qaida’s wealthy Gulf donors could theoretically be pouring cash into the ACLU right?
Fred, there is nothing that prevents Gulf donors from funding the ACLU, but the ACLU is required to disclose its donors which, I am told, is a form subject to FOIA. If any reader has too much time on his/her hands, somebody should FOIA that form.
Fred, you do remember that O managed to set up his web page so that he could get donations from anyone, anywhere during the campaign? If he took money from overseas, I’m sure that the AQCLU is doing it too.
I referenced this matter in my latest blog post in the context of posting about the latest paper released by the Warrior Legacy Institute regarding “The Legal Assault Against Our Counterterror Efforts,” which, even as one who has been on the opposite side of the fence regarding the war, I share the concerns voiced by the authors Jim Hanson and BA Patty. My post on this is at http://tinyurl.com/yhaxrnw