U.S. can keep secrets on targeted killings of terrorism suspects overseas, judge rules

The CIA drone strike that killed al Qaeda's leader of external operations, Anwar al-Awlaki, also apparently killed al Qaeda's top bomb-maker and its lead ppopaganda expert.

NEW YORK A federal judge has ruled that President Barack Obama's administration doesn't have to publicly disclose its legal justification for the drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas.

Two New York Times reporters and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a 2011 request under the Freedom of Information Act that sought any documents in which Department of Justice lawyers had discussed the highly classified "targeted-killing" program.

• Officials: U.S. kills Pakistan militant chief

The requests followed a drone strike in Yemen that killed an al Qaeda leader, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who had been born in the U.S. That attack prompted complaints from some law scholars and human rights activists that, away from the battlefield, it was illegal for the U.S. to kill American citizens without a trial.

Those demands for documents were turned down, on the grounds that releasing any details about the program, or even acknowledging that documents on the subject existed, could harm national security.

In a decision signed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon chided the Obama administration for refusing to provide the documents but said she had no authority to order them disclosed.

"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "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."

The judge kept one small part of the ACLU's document request alive, pertaining to a pair of Department of Defense documents that are not classified, but said she was obligated to reject the remainder of the requests because of national security secrecy rules. Part of her opinion was filed under seal, unable to be seen even by lawyers for the Times and the ACLU, and may be read only by people with security clearance.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice declined to comment on the ruling, saying only that the decision was under review.

Play Video

Americans protest drone strikes in Pakistan

David McCraw, assistant general counsel at the Times, said the newspaper planned to appeal the judge's ruling, although he also praised her for speaking "eloquently and at length to the serious legal questions raised by the targeted-killing program."

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said the ruling would deny the public "access to crucial information about the government's extrajudicial killing of American citizens."

"The judge rightly acknowledges that the targeted-killing program raises troubling questions," he added.

The judge, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, noted in her decision that Obama and high officials in his administration had, on several occasions, acknowledged publicly that the killings were taking place and revealed that their legality had been discussed internally. But she said those discussions were done "in cryptic and imprecise ways."

"More fulsome disclosure of the legal reasoning on which the Administration relies to justify the targeted killing of individuals, including United States citizens, far from any recognizable `hot' field of battle, would allow for intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated," the judge wrote.

"However, this court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me."

[Modernsage]

By All means, if people decide to harm innocent people like the lone terrorists we have seen shooting up children in Newton,bus driver and movie theater goers in Colorado, then they have to be contained by all means necessary.I ma just asking why are innocent people targeted?People who are law abiding,not even muslims, they go about their business of building their lives, but becuase somebody somewhere has paranoia or personality clash, then they send your name in the database.Really

[Modernsage]

Putin must be amused right about now.Miss Liberty has turned out to be a nasty ass ***** like the poet would say.Isnt it just dangerous to give an individual God like power over people's lives.When innocent people are dead,its too late to say sorry.I guess you just have to wait your turn at the Lord Judgement table.We have seen how intelligence can be cooked and souped up,it is usually miles away from reality.So you label innocent people as terrorists and you kill them,these people have even no idea that they are target of the clandestine folks,when does the madness stop?

[sabniz]

that means state assassination at will. US becomes as low as Taliban now.

[Shadeten]

Of course. Barry O is "God" and whatever he does is right. You knew that.

[ballwyllo]

I think that the ACLU should set up a 1-800 line and anytime a soldier is getting ready to shoot an enemy, they can call them and get clearance. It is important that we protect the constitutional rights of our enemies. Come on people get on board with the agenda!

[Fantom65]

I do believe the word discribing Anwar is "TRAITOR" and I didn't see
al Qaeda sending us any papers on their operation to down the towers.
These people are Idiots. They want to know who betrayed them so they can cut their head off on middle east TV.
How civilized they are, shooting young girls, blowing themslves up, Ect.
The drone program should be expanded. The next time they want some papers give them a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and tell them to look up each time they go outside.

[cbs_bull]

After a US citizen joined and fought for the enemy in a war, I have no problem for killing him without a trial.

[BigMykul]

Another Clintoon appointee protecting Oblamo's actions

[caljack430]

There is a huge difference between target killing random citizens and target killing jihadist converts who just so happen to have been born in the united states. I have no problem with the government killing terrorists, no matter where they were born. Nor do I personally feel the need for the government to tell me every single thing they do. I'm not saying that they should be keeping massive secrets from the public, but I strongly believe that there is a great deal of the world that the citizens of this country have no need to know and a lot of it is probably best left a secret. Sorry if this makes a lazy and uninterested American, but I would rather concern myself with other issues than why and how the government is picking off terrorists.

[JackSmack]

You just a have small mind. Don't worry most Americans do.

Better watch what you say and do from now on. YOUR government might one day label you as a terrorist and kill you.

Whats going to stop them. Sheep like you?

[sabniz]

@jacksmack: exactly, and i couldn't say it better!

[Jhihmoac]

D'uh...Like this needed to even be introduced to a court?