Court Rejects Lawsuits Demanding Obama Disclose More Info on Drone Program
"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this...is not lost on me," the judge said, referring to the nightmarish world in which people are sentenced to death before a verdict is in.
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected The New York Times‘ bid to force the US government to disclose more information about its drone war, a targeted killing program that kills suspects without charge or trial, even American citizens.
US District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan upheld the Obama administration’s ability to throw out legal cases by claiming disclosures would harm national security, a tactic called state secrets privileges which was pioneered by the Bush administration.
In her statement, McMahon appeared reluctant in her ruling, noting that such disclosures could help the public understand the “vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty.”
“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” McMahon said, referring to the nightmarish wonderland in which people are sentenced to death before a verdict from a jury is in.
The Obama administration has continued its dramatic increase in the use of armed drones to target and kill mostly unnamed people, primarily in Yemen and Pakistan. When a high-profile terrorist suspect is killed, the Obama administration openly discusses the success of the drone program. But when journalists and civil liberties groups ask tough, scrutinizing questions about the legality of the program, the administration gets away with ignoring their requests for information, claiming the program is secret.
McMahon also ruled against a parallel lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had argued in appeals court that if administration officials get to selectively talk about the drone war in speeches and to reporters, it can’t then turn around and say the program is too secret to comply with FOIA requests.
“The public has a right to know more about the circumstances in which the government believes it can lawfully kill people, including U.S. citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
- Conservative Group Absurdly Claims Awlaki Involved in 9/11 - January 4th, 2013
- Nusra Front Takes Lead in Rebel Fight in Damascus - January 3rd, 2013
- Obama Signs 2013 NDAA, Blocking Closure of Gitmo - January 3rd, 2013
- US Defense Corporations Benefitting From Obama's 'Asia-Pivot' - January 1st, 2013
- President Obama Reauthorizes Warrantless Wiretapping Law - December 31st, 2012
Scott
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:39 pm
We love to bash the right wing judges when they side with right wing politicians, we need to do the same when leftist judges side with the politicians they support. What happened to unbiased judges that used to use the law and our constitution as their guide to making decisions? If they want to keep playing politics with our judicial system and our constitution, we need to take their lifetime appointments away.
How could she quote the Framers of our constitution to say that the people of the USA don’t have the right to know when or why our government is murdering our citizens? PATHETIC!!! Democracy is truly dead.
RickR30
January 2nd, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Colleen, you are no judge, you are a coward and a disgrace.
Loose Savage
January 2nd, 2013 at 11:42 pm
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me”
I think McMahon's decision is more about what's not lost by her: a hefty government pension.
MoT
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:34 am
So she recognizes the evil absurdity yet supports it. Well if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know.
Pepper Di
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:04 am
It's called double speak. Predetermined support for laws arbitarily created by the government is the criteria. I have never seen a judge come out to disagree with another juidge. They enjoy their personal territory.
Boson JOe
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:33 am
“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.
Gee, maybe she could have ruled according to the Constitution. Disgraceful.
paulBass
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:00 pm
i wonder if anyone ask if the executive would be allowed to kill a judge who threatens national security by ruling that they can't keep the killing secret.
contraviews
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:45 pm
The ***** (female dog) got blood on her hands. This opens the door to any (terrorist/resistance?) organisation in the world to do exactly the same:kill your adversaries no matter who or where they are. We live in a lawless world.