Is the Obama administration's drone war legal? Why should we be concerned?
This was originally posted on .
Former Bush administration attorney John Bellinger, ACLU Center for Democracy Director Jameel Jaffer and WSJ Pentagon correspondent Julian Barnes appeared on NPR's program to discuss the legality of the Obama administration's seemingly ever-expanding drone war.
"The most open secret in Washington is the CIA drone program. Although technically classified, it's something the President has discussed, the administration has discussed," Barnes said. The fake secrecy surrounding the drone campaign has stymied the ACLU's efforts to get access to Obama administration documents about the strikes.
Jaffer has previously that this fake secrecy is "absurd":
It is preposterous. The assertion that this programme is a secret is nothing short of absurd. For more than two years, senior officials have been making claims about the programme both on the record and off. They've claimed that the programme is effective, lawful and closely supervised. If they can make these claims, there is no reason why they should not be required to respond to [FOIA] requests.
Among the important issues raised in the NPR discussion is the question of whether or not the United States' actions in places like Yemen and Pakistan, where we have not declared a war, could backfire against the United States if other countries decide that they can strike anywhere at will, as long as they say that the targets are threatening their interests.
On that question, Julian Barnes was unequivocal: yes this is a concern, and that's why the Obama administration is floating the concept of a "rule book" to govern the strikes:
"What the US does with its drone program will establish the rules, the customary international rules, over time, for the rest of the world....If you want to stop the Chinese or the Pakistanis...from having a targeted killing campaign that is not terribly precise...you need to establish clear rules" that make it illegal to target civilians.
But doing that isn't as simple as writing a Rule Book with which to execute your Kill Lists. As , there is nothing to guarantee that other countries or future administrations will listen to the Obama administration's so-called Rules. His actions matter, not his speeches or admonitions to other countries.
The question of blowback is also complicated for the Obama administration because of its so-called "signature strikes," attacks on people the CIA or JSOC think may be terrorists because they behave in a certain way, even when the government doesn't know the names or identities of the people it is killing. Violations of international law cannot be disappeared or obfuscated with a Rule Book, but they can set a very dangerous tone for the way that countries do business.
The ACLU's Jaffer:
"The Obama administration is right to worry about how the power will be used by the next administration, but I think Americans ought to be worried about how the power is being used by this administration as well."
You should listen to the program in full if you have time; it's well worth it, if only to hear a former Bush administration lawyer chastise the Obama team for its aggressiveness, questionably legal policy making and secrecy.
"We're pretty far out on a limb here as we engage in pretty edgy and aggressive theory...we don't have a lot of other countries in the world saying 'Yeah we agree with what the United States is doing,' so that's a pretty precarious place" for us to be, Bellinger said.
The Obama administration apparently continues to think that they have legal authority under [the post-9/11 authorization for use of military force]. Personally, I think and have been writing, that it is questionable, because that authorization allows use of force against the people who committed or planned or harbored those who committed or planned 9/11, and so 11 years later, it's not at all clear that the drone strikes against you know, people in Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia, young men who were in their 20s, who twelve years ago might have been 8 or 9 years old, were in fact part of the same organization that planned 9/11. So, the Obama administration continues to say that they have that authority under congressional authorization, but I think it's a fair question as to whether they really do. What we're really seeing...[is] growing international outrage about whether drone strikes are lawful under international law. Are they infringing on the sovereignty of other countries when we drop drones in other countries? Do they violate principles of international human rights law to kill a particular individual?
That is not the ACLU speaking, it is a former Bush administration official, warning us about how the United States' actions are setting a dangerous stage for the world, and pointing out the very tenuous legal footing on which the drone program rests.
As Bellinger observes, we don't know whether or not any of the people the US has killed in its various drone campaigns were connected in any way to the 9/11 attacks, but things like "signature strikes" pretty much guarantee that many of the dead had nothing to with them.
Since the Obama administration won't be honest with the public about how it makes decisions to kill absent due process, we are put in a similar position as we were when the Bush administration told us to trust that the people it locked up in GITMO were "the worst of the worst," as Jaffer puts it. We don't really know what's going on. We later found out that those people were not the worst of the worst, and that many of them had been sold as bounty to US soldiers; they were locked up in a nightmare for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Many of the victims of US drone strikes were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time, too, but there is no second chance for them.
At the very least, the Obama administration should come clean and tell us how it chooses its targets, and clearly spell out how it justifies the program under domestic and international law -- not in leaked anonymous quotes to the New York Times, but in legal memos and government documents disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
Like former Bush administration official John Bellinger said:
"They haven't explained who they are going after....What even I, having served eight years the last administration, don't fully understand is why they can't explain more after the fact, why the person was targeted, why they were killed so that the rest of the world can really judge, 'Yes I agree, that senior al Qaeda official in Yemen who was planning an attack, and we got him in his bomb factory.'"
Why won't the Obama administration tell us who it has killed in our names? What does it have to hide?
Learn more about drones: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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.