logo

Court Orders Memo Release Justifying Drone Strike on U.S. Citizen

image
Created: 21 April, 2014
Updated: 14 October, 2022
2 min read

On Monday, April 21, a federal appeals court ordered the release of key parts of a memorandum detailing the justification behind targeted drone strikes against people linked to terrorism, including U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The 3-judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed to reverse a lower court's decision by ordering the DOJ to release this information.

Since U.S. officials have already released statements on the 2011 drone strike against al-Awlaki and other strikes, the court ruled that the government has forfeited its right to keep certain portions of the memo classified.

“Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had,” Judge Jon O. Newman wrote, “has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the D.O.J. White Paper.”

The "White Paper" was released in February 2013 and offered a very general explanation from the Obama administration on why targeted drone strikes are constitutional and within the administration's authority to carry out.

The court said it is no longer logical or even plausible for the government to argue that disclosing legal analysis regarding drone strikes is a threat to future military operations, intelligence gathering, or efforts overseas after it has already disclosed similar information.

The plaintiffs, including the New York Times, two of its reporters, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit after the government denied Freedom of Information Act requests to release the documents. A January 2011 decision by Manhattan federal judge Colleen McMahon questioned the legality of drone strikes, but said the administration was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution by keeping the memo classified.

The Appeals Court ruling on Monday overturned this decision in a case that is essentially about the public's right to know what its government is up to versus executive power to decide what documents need to be kept secret for the sake of national security. The court did not order the full release of the memo, and redacted portions about intelligence gathering.

It is unclear, at this point, how the government will respond.

Photo Credit: ABC News

Latest articles

votes
Wyoming Purges Nearly 30% of Its Voters from Registration Rolls
It is not uncommon for a state to clean out its voter rolls every couple of years -- especially to r...
27 March, 2024
-
1 min read
ballot box
The Next Big Win in Better Election Reform Could Come Where Voters Least Expect
Idaho isn't a state that gets much attention when people talk about politics in the US. However, this could change in 2024 if Idahoans for Open Primaries and their allies are successful with their proposed initiative....
21 March, 2024
-
3 min read
Courts
Why Do We Accept Partisanship in Judicial Elections?
The AP headline reads, "Ohio primary: Open seat on state supreme court could flip partisan control." This immediately should raise a red flag for voters, and not because of who may benefit but over a question too often ignored....
19 March, 2024
-
9 min read
Nick Troiano
Virtual Discussion: The Primary Solution with Unite America's Nick Troiano
In the latest virtual discussion from Open Primaries, the group's president, John Opdycke, sat down ...
19 March, 2024
-
1 min read
Sinema
Sinema's Exit Could Be Bad News for Democrats -- Here's Why
To many, the 2024 presidential primary has been like the movie Titanic - overly long and ending in a disaster we all saw coming from the start. After months of campaigning and five televised primary debates, Americans are now faced with a rematch between two candidates polling shows a majority of them didn’t want....
19 March, 2024
-
7 min read