Drone documents case: federal appeals court rules against CIA

Judge rejects CIA argument that it had no 'interest' in lethal drone strikes. He called the CIA argument neither logical nor plausible, since US officials have acknowledged involvement.

|
B.K. Bangash/AP/File
Pakistani villagers rally in Islamabad, Pakistan, to condemn US drone attacks along the Afghanistan border in this Dec. 10, 2010 file photo. The head of a U.N. team investigating casualties from US drone strikes declared on Friday that the attacks violate Pakistan's sovereignty. Also on Friday, a US court of appeals ruled against the CIA over drones documents.

A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents related to the use of drone aircraft in targeted killings overseas.

The CIA had initially responded to the Jan. 2010 FOIA request by stating that it would neither confirm not deny the existence of any documents at the agency related to the secret program.

A federal judge accepted the argument and dismissed the FOIA request in Sept. 2011.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the request, appealed.

The appeals court decision sends the case back to federal court where the CIA will be required to present a list of documents potentially relevant to the ACLU’s request. 

The decision doesn’t mean the ACLU will necessarily gain access to any or all documents.

But the decision is significant in a broader way.

“This is an important victory. It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIA’s interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the program’s scope and legal basis,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said, in statement.

“It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them,” Mr. Jaffer said.

The ACLU request for information was made in an effort to shed light on America’s lethal drone program. The lawyers want the agency to reveal when and where drones are being used, and who is being targeted.

They are also seeking information about how the government is guaranteeing compliance with international law against extrajudicial killings.

In its decision on Friday, the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the CIA’s argument that it was under no obligation to reveal the existence of drone-related documents at the agency.

Government lawyers had said that since no CIA or executive branch official had disclosed whether the CIA “has an interest in drone strikes,” there was no basis for the agency to respond in any way to the FOIA request. The agency maintained that any response – either confirming or denying – would reveal sensitive information.

Writing for the panel, Chief Judge Merrick Garland dismissed the CIA’s position as “neither logical nor plausible.”

He noted that President Obama, then-counter terrorism adviser John Brennan, and then-CIA Director Leon Panetta had all given public statements acknowledging the drone program.

“Given these official acknowledgments that the United States has participated in drone strikes, it is neither logical nor plausible for the CIA to maintain that it would reveal anything not already in the public domain to say that the Agency at least has an intelligence interest in such strikes,” Judge Garland wrote.

“The defendant is, after all, the Central Intelligence Agency. And it strains credulity to suggest that an agency charged with gathering intelligence affecting the national security does not have an ‘intelligence interest’ in drone strikes, even if that agency does not operate the drones itself,” the judge said.

Officials at the ACLU praised the decision.

“We hope that this ruling will encourage the Obama administration to fundamentally reconsider the secrecy surrounding the targeted killing program,” Jaffer said. “The program has already been responsible for the deaths of more than 4,000 people in an unknown number of countries. The public surely has a right to know who the government is killing, and why, and in which countries, and on whose orders,” he said.

“The Obama administration, which has repeatedly acknowledged the importance of government transparency, should give the public the information it needs in order to fully evaluate the wisdom and lawfulness of the government’s policies,” Jaffer said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Drone documents case: federal appeals court rules against CIA
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0315/Drone-documents-case-federal-appeals-court-rules-against-CIA
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe