Three years ago, in a at the National Defense University, President Obama announced that he had signed a classified document to tighten and formalize the rules relating to the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists “outside the United States and areas of actual hostilities.” The document — the Presidential Policy Guidance, or PPG — was not published at the time, but a redacted version of it is likely to be disclosed in the next week or so, perhaps alongside several related documents, a new executive order, and official casualty statistics for the drone war.
The release of these documents will be a transparency milestone. While it remains to be seen how redacted the documents will be, and how specific and forthright the government will be in acknowledging civilian casualties, even a partial release will shed new light on what Judge Colleen McMahon once “this ill-defined yet 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.”
Below, I consider what the government is likely to release, what we may learn as a result, and how reassured we should be by President Obama’s effort to deliver in the eighth year of his presidency a measure of the transparency he promised in the first.
What the Administration Will Release, and Why
The ACLU filed suit in March 2015 to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request seeking, among other things, records describing (i) the legal basis for the targeted killing program and (ii) the standards and evidentiary processes used by the government to evaluate the use of lethal force in particular instances. This past February, Judge McMahon, who is presiding over the case, expressed skepticism about the government’s basis for withholding the entirety of the PPG, and she ordered it to turn over that document and two Defense Department reports for her review in camera. (A fourth, fifth, and sixth document were later added to the court’s list.) After considering the court’s order, the government withdrew its broadest claims of privilege and stated that it would release redacted versions of the documents, and it submitted to the court the versions it proposed to release.
The six documents that Judge McMahon reviewed in camera are:
- The PPG (identified in the ACLU litigation as OLC Doc. 306).
- A Defense Department document identified only as a “classified memorandum” (DOD Doc. 6).
- A Defense Department document dated March 6, 2014, and titled “Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal or Capture Operations” (DOD Doc. 7). Aredacted version of this document was turned over to the ACLU in the fall of 2015.
- A Defense Department document dated July 2014, and titled “Report on Associated Forces” (DOD Doc. 8). A redacted version of this document was turned over to the ACLU in the fall of 2015.
- A Defense Department document dated March 26, 2014, and titled “Report on Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military Operations and Counterterrorism Operational Briefings” (DOD Doc. 9). A redacted version of this document was turned over to the ACLU in the fall of 2015.
- A CIA document identified only as a “classified memorandum” (CIA Doc. 15).
With respect to these documents, the question before the court was whether the government’s proposed redactions were defensible under the FOIA.
Last week, Judge McMahon indicated that she had finalized her opinion and had provided it to the government for classification review. Once the government’s classification review has concluded, Judge McMahon will post her opinion to the public docket and the government will then publish, at the very least, the redacted documents it submitted to the court.
But the administration will almost certainly release more than this. In a , Lisa Monaco, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, stated that “in the coming weeks, the Administration will publicly release an assessment of combatant and non-combatant casualties resulting from strikes taken outside areas of active hostilities since 2009.” A month later, Monaco the commitment. My understanding is that the release has been delayed because of disagreement within the administration about precisely which statistics to release. More than three months have passed, however, since the administration stated that it would release the statistics — surely time enough to resolve any disagreement. Moreover, the administration may see an advantage in releasing the statistics together with the PPG and other documents that set out the substantive standards and evidentiary processes relating to the targeted killing program.
The administration is also a new executive order that would commit the government to annually disclosing statistics relating to drone-war casualties. The issuance of the executive order would presumably be an effort to encourage future administrations to provide the same kind of transparency that this one is now on the verge of providing.
What We’re Likely to Learn From the PPG
We already know something about the PPG from a the administration released in connection with the president’s May 2013 speech at the National Defense University. According to the fact sheet, the PPG “formalize[d] and strengthen[ed] the Administration’s rigorous process for reviewing and approving operations to capture or employ lethal force against terrorist targets outside the United States and outside areas of active hostilities.” The PPG states that the United States will use lethal force only against individuals who pose a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons”; only if there is “near-certainty” that the target is present and “near-certainty” that non-combatants will not be injured or killed; and only if it assesses that capture is not feasible, that government authorities in the relevant state are unable or unwilling to address the threat, and that there are “no reasonable alternatives” to the use of lethal force.
The fact sheet suggests that the administration adopted relatively stringent standards for the use of lethal force outside war zones. As many have noted, however, some of the fact sheet’s key terms are vague, elastic, and even contradictory. For example, in what kinds of circumstances is capture deemed “infeasible”? Does infeasibility entail only an operational judgment, or does it entail a political one as well? And any capture operation will always involve risk — how much risk is sufficient to render a capture operation infeasible? Similar questions might be asked about the term “unable and unwilling,” and similar questions have already been asked (e.g., , , and here) about the phrase “continuing, imminent threat.”
One can’t realistically expect the PPG to answer every question in advance, but there is a great deal of distance between the standards described in the fact sheet and the kinds of standards that would meaningfully constrain executive action. Perhaps one can see evidence of this in the multiple post-May 2013 strikes that have . The release of the PPG will be significant if the document clarifies the substantive standards the government uses in determining whether to use lethal force.
The release of the PPG will also be significant if the document supplies more information about the procedures by which the government identifies and approves targets. In the fall of last year, The Intercept a fascinating set of documents relating to the Joint Special Operations Command’s so-called “kill chain,” but the documents pre-date the president’s National Defense University speech and presumably do not account for any processes and safeguards put in place by the PPG. Nor do the documents address the decision-making process of the CIA. In the ACLU’s FOIA litigation, the government told the court that “the PPG contains a much more detailed explanation of the standards and procedures employed in both capture and lethal targeting counterterrorism operations.” Perhaps the PPG will make clearer which actors are making the important decisions, and on whose recommendations those decisions are based.
Finally, the release of the PPG will be significant if the government uses the release as an occasion to clarify the geographic application of the PPG’s standards, as have it should do. The fact sheet states that the PPG applies “outside areas of active hostilities,” but it does not explain what is meant by this phrase. (It was not until this past April that the administration confirmed to Charlie Savage what many long suspected — that the administration regards the border regions of Pakistan to be an area of active hostilities and so not subject to the PPG.) As Rita Siemion has , the question of where the PPG applies is especially crucial because the administration has adopted the view that the international armed conflict against al-Qaeda and its affiliates is a borderless one, meaning that in its view every operation against al-Qaeda or its associates, wherever carried out, is governed by the laws of war rather than international human rights law.
What We’re Likely to Learn From the Casualty Statistics and Executive Order
The value of the new executive order and the casualty statistics will depend largely on the granularity of the information the administration discloses now, and the granularity of the information it commits to disclosing in the future. Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt that the government will provide the kind of specificity that would actually be useful to journalists, human rights researchers, and the general public. In The Washington Post, Karen de Young recently that while the administration’s statistics would likely encompass strikes in Pakistan, the statistics are likely to be “presented in aggregates without specific reference to geographic location or date.” Perhaps this should not be surprising. When the ACLU requested information about individual strikes through the FOIA, the CIA argued that the disclosure of such information could compromise national security. (In an unpublished, per curiam opinion, the D.C. Circuit sided with the agency.)
It will be unfortunate if the government releases only aggregate statistics. The release of more specific information is crucial because each of the independent groups that tracks drone-related civilian casualties has reported far higher numbers than those government officials in the past, and far higher numbers than those the government is to disclose now. Without the release of data about specific strikes, it will be difficult to check the government’s data against that of independent groups.
To allow for meaningful public oversight, the government should release information about every strike — the date of the strike, the location, the numbers of those killed or injured, and the civilian or combatant status of those casualties. (Notably, the Defense Department has recently this kind of information for strikes in Yemen.) The government should release this kind of information whether the strikes are carried out by the military or the CIA. Perhaps national security considerations would justify a short delay in the release of this kind of information after a strike, but the information should be released. The public has a right to know who the government is killing — and if the government doesn’t know who it’s killing, the public has a right to know that.
A Larger, More Fundamental Point
The release of more information about the drone campaign will be a welcome development, even if much of the information the government discloses should have been disclosed a long time ago. It should not escape notice, though, that the administration will be making most of these disclosures of its own accord. True, it will be releasing the PPG in response to FOIA litigation, and only after a federal judge cast doubt on the administration’s authority to withhold the document in its entirety under a characteristically sweeping claim of executive privilege. But no court order requires it to disclose casualty statistics or to commit to the release of more information in the future. The administration’s disclosures, and its promises of future disclosures, are to a significant extent a matter of executive grace.
Can it possibly make sense to allow the executive branch to decide the scope of the public’s “right to know” on an issue of such consequence? Surely it should not be up to the executive branch alone to decide what the public knows about killings the executive branch has carried out. Yet Congress has not required the government to disclose information about the drone campaign to the public, and nor, for the most part, have the courts. (It is a crucial but under-appreciated fact that, to the extent the appeals courts have required the government to release information about the targeted killing program, they have done so the information had been — i.e., that the information had already been disclosed.) The other branches should be playing a far greater role in ensuring that the public has the information it needs in order to understand and assess the government’s policies.
I don’t mean to suggest that the issuance of a new executive order will be something other than a positive step. If President Obama issues a new executive order, it will be because he wants to do what he can to ensure that the transparency he is providing now will be provided by his successor, too. This is commendable. To state the obvious, though, any executive order signed by President Obama can be rescinded by President Clinton or Trump. Moreover, the stronger the transparency commitment made by President Obama, the more likely it is that the next president will want to rescind it. Of course, the next president may not be able to rescind the order without incurring a political cost, but the next president will be able to manage the political fallout by noting that President Obama issued the executive order in his last months in office after having defended for seven years.
The public’s right to information about the drone campaign, and about counterterrorism policy more generally, should not depend on the grace of executive branch officials. Transparency should be required by law.
And essentially the same point could be made about the targeted killing campaign more generally, given that, as Brett Max Kaufman and I recently , the campaign is not subject to any meaningful constraint that could not be lifted with a stroke of the next president’s pen. Neither Congress nor the courts have imposed any significant restriction — or even weighed in — on the president’s authority to order the use of lethal force away from conventional battlefields. President Obama’s lawyers have been fantastically successful in preserving what they would characterize as executive prerogatives.
And the broad and largely unsupervised authority they claimed for President Obama will soon be available to another president — perhaps one who will use this power even more aggressively than President Obama has. The administration’s release of the PPG and other documents will be welcome, but the documents themselves will be a reminder of a failure on the part of all three branches to subject an awesome power — indeed one unparalleled in its potential for abuse — to oversight and constraint.
This post originally appeared at .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.