Ours Is Not to Reason Why

In October, the ACLU filed a FOIA request demanding disclosure of the most basic information about the CIA’s killing of 3 American citizens in Yemen: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan, killed by missiles fired by a U.S. drone in September, and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, killed by another drone attack two weeks later.

The ACLU’s FOIA request sought merely to learn the legal and factual basis for these killings — meaning: tell us what legal theories you’ve adopted to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution, and what factual basis did you have to launch these specific strikes? The DOJ and CIA responded not only by refusing to provide any of this information, but refused even to confirm if any of the requested documents exist; in other words, as the ACLU put it yesterday, “these agencies are saying the targeted killing program is so secret that they can’t even acknowledge that it exists.” That refusal is what prompted yesterday’s [ACLU lawsuit against DOJ, DOD and CIA] (in December, the New York Times also sued the Obama administration after it failed to produce DOJ legal memoranda “justifying” the assassination program in response to a FOIA request from reporters Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, but the ACLU’s lawsuit seeks disclosure of both the legal and factual bases for these executions).

[...]

When forced to justify their assassination program in court [during an attempt by Awlaki’s father to prevent the government from killing his son], the Obama DOJ insisted that the program was so secretive that it could not even safely confirm that it existed — it’s a state secret – and thus no court could or should review its legality.

[...]

Truly: what more tyrannical power is there than for a government to target its own citizens for death — in total secrecy and with no checks — and then insist on the right to do so without even having to explain its legal and factual rationale for what it is doing?

[...]

What makes this assertion so inexcusable — beyond its inherently and self-evidently anti-democratic nature — is that the Obama administration constantly boasts in public about this very same program when doing so is politically beneficial for the President.

[...]

[For instance] Obama can go on TV shows and trigger applause for himself by boasting of the Awlaki killing. He can publicly accuse Awlaki of all sorts of crimes for which there has been no evidence presented. He can dispatch his aides to anonymously brag in newspapers about all the secret evidence showing Awlaki’s guilt and showing how resolute and tough the President is for ordering him executed.

[...]

[But when] they face the rule of law, then the program is so profoundly classified that it cannot be spoken of at all — indeed, the administration cannot even confirm or deny that it exists — and it therefore cannot be scrutinized by courts at all.

[...]

This selective, manipulative abuse of secrecy reveals its true purpose. It has nothing to do with protecting national security; that’s proven by the Obama administration’s eagerness to boast about the program publicly and to glorify it when it helps the President politically. The secrecy instead has everything to do with (1) preventing facts that would be politically harmful from being revealed to the American public, and (2) shielding the President’s conduct from judicial review.

[...]

[In another example of this same behavior, for] years, Obama officials have refused even to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a CIA drone program even though everyone knows there is. But this week, the President was asked during an Internet forum about his drone attacks and he made very specific claims about it in order to glorify and justify it. Nonetheless, as [the Washington Post] notes, the administration still refuses to answer any questions about the drone program — or even acknowledge its existence — based on the claim that its very existence (which the President just discussed in public) is classified.

[...]

White House spokesman Jay Carney rebuffed questions Tuesday about whether President Obama had violated intelligence restrictions on the secret U.S. drone program in Pakistan when he openly discussed the subject the day before. . . . Asked if the president had made a mistake, Carney said he was “not going to discuss . . . supposedly covert programs.”

He suggested that nothing Obama had said could be a security violation: “He’s the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. He’s the president of the United States.”

[...]

[T]his is exactly the opposite of what President Obama said when he publicly decreed Bradley Manning guilty: “: If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law.” [ed: I can’t tell you why he’s guilty, but take my word for it - he’s guilty.  But, of course, I can't talk about an ongoing investigation.  In our country a man has to be proven guilty.]

[...]

This is exactly the same model used by both the Bush and Obama DOJs to shield warrantless eavesdropping, rendition, torture, drones, civilian killings and a whole host of other crimes from judicial review, i.e., from the rule of law. Everyone knows that the U.S. Government is doing these things. They are discussed openly all over the world. The damage they do and the victims they leave behind make it impossible to conceal them. Often, they are the subject of judicial proceedings in other countries.

There’s only one place in the world where these programs cannot be discussed: in American courts.

  Glenn Greenwald

And, what can we do about it, you ask?

Whenever these issues are discussed, people often ask what can be done about them. There are no easy answers to that question, but supporting the ACLU is definitely one important act (as I noted many times, I previously consulted with the ACLU but have not done so for a couple of years). There are several excellent civil liberties groups in the U.S. worthy of support (CCR is one example), but the ACLU is constantly at the forefront in imposing at least some substantial barriers to the government’s always-escalating abuse of its powers, and, unlike most advocacy groups in the U.S., it defends its values and imposes checks without the slightest regard for which party controls the government (recall the 2010 statement of its Executive Director, Anthony Romero, about President Obama’s civil liberties record). One can become a member of the ACLU or otherwise support its genuinely vital work here.

If you don’t mind being on the FBI and CIA lists targeting people who give aid and comfort to terrorists, that is.  I hope you look good in orange. 

The ACLU consistently and tirelessly does important civil liberties work and has been the premier, if not only, group to do so.  In the end, they may be the only thing standing between you and that orange jumpsuit some day.  If not for comforting terrorists, then something in the future that the government deems necessary to shield itself from its citizens.

All my life, tyrant supporters have vilified the ACLU by referring to them as "commies".  And any time they wanted to vilify an individual, they would refer to that person as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." (This is even a worse slur than "liberal.") That was probably enough to prevent people from supporting them during the Red Scare HUAC days, but nobody is afraid of that any more.  Besides, then you just lost your job and your livelihood if branded a commie.  Now, you can end up in an overseas chain gang, never to be charged, and never to be heard from again if you are deemed an enemy of the state by virtue of the vague pronouncement of  "giving comfort to the enemy."   That's got to make you think twice.  I suggest cash to your local ACLU chapter.  Give a fake name if asked.  Don't take a receipt.  (Half in jest, all in earnest.)

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.