background preloader

US Targeted Killing

Facebook Twitter

OBL killing

Obama's war by drone. Targeted Killing of Terrorist Suspects Overseas. The legalities of the U.S. drone program. Culture Connoisseur Badge Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

The legalities of the U.S. drone program

More about badges | Request a badge Washingtologist Badge Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area. Post Writer Badge This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer. Post Contributor Badge This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post Recommended Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post. Q & A: US Targeted Killings and International Law. Following the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W.

Q & A: US Targeted Killings and International Law

Bush began a campaign of “targeted killings” against suspected members of al Qaeda and other armed groups. It has continued under the administration of President Barack Obama. This Q&A focuses on legal and policy issues related to targeted killings, primarily attacks using unmanned aerial vehicles, known as drones, conducted by the US Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Human Rights Watch raised many of the issues addressed here in a December 2010 letter to President Obama.

Human Rights Watch calls upon the US government to clarify fully and publicly its legal rationale for conducting targeted killings and the legal limits on such strikes. 1. Drone Wars: Counterterrorism and Human Rights. Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen. White House offers rare defense of drone attacks. President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser offered a rare public defense Sunday of the use of armed drones to target terrorism suspects - a technique widely discussed by national security experts outside government and by human rights activists, but almost always treated as secret by U.S. officials.

White House offers rare defense of drone attacks

"Drones, the remotely piloted vehicles, [are] a tremendously capable tool to use against the terrorist abroad. It has capability to monitor their activities. It provides a good insight to our intelligence analysts and operators in terms of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It has the capability of carrying out strikes as well," Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said on "Fox News Sunday.

" "When we're doing this, we are doing it in full consent and cooperation with our partners internationally. Holder Letter on Counterterror Strikes Against U.S. Citizens - Interactive Feature. Facebook Twitter Google+ E-mail Share Published: May 22, 2013 The day before President Obama’s planned speech on drone policy, Attorney General Eric H.

Holder Letter on Counterterror Strikes Against U.S. Citizens - Interactive Feature

So much evidence, there’s no need to show it. During the NSA eavesdropping controversy, Bush defenders insisted there was no harm from bypassing the FISA court because they were only eavesdropping on Bad Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?)

So much evidence, there’s no need to show it

, which prompted this obvious, unanswerable question (one I asked here, among other places): if you really have so much evidence proving that the targets of your eavesdropping are Terrorists, then why not go show it to the court and get a warrant? After all, the more incriminating evidence you claim exists, the more (not less) reason there is to show it to a court. Similarly, during the controversy over Bush’s (and now Obama’s) detentions without due process, administration defenders insisted there was no need to charge the detainees or try them in a court because they were only imprisoning the-worst-of-the-worst, too-dangerous-to-release Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?) That is the mindset of the U.S. Four related points: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans. A secretive memo from the Justice Department, provided to NBC News, provides new information about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's controversial policies.

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Now, John Brennan, Obama's nominee for CIA director, is expected to face tough questions about drone strikes on Thursday when he appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports. By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News. Draft Targeted Killing White Paper. Feinstein Statement on Intelligence Committee Oversight of Targeted Killings - Press Releases - News Room - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein. David Barron and the OTHER missing memos. David Barron was just confirmed to the First Circuit.

David Barron and the OTHER missing memos

To secure that vote, the Administration announced it would not appeal the Second Circuit’s order to turn over a redacted version of a July 16, 2010 memo Barron wrote at OLC authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, effectively responding to demands from Senators Rand Paul and Mark Udall and others to release the memo in exchange for a vote. With each Executive Branch confirmation (the Administration released a white paper summarizing the memo in connection with John Brennan’s 2013 confirmation as CIA Director), then, we get a slightly clearer picture of the Executive Branch’s legal justification for executing an American citizen who it claims played a senior operational role for a group affiliated with al Qaeda. But thus far, the public – and apparently most or all of Congress – remains ignorant about the legal analysis behind other parts of the drone program.

U.S. Asks Court to Censor More Parts of Targeted-Killing Memo.