AP Sources: Justice Dept. to Reveal Drone Memo

[jct74]

AP Sources: Justice Dept. to Reveal Drone Memo

By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press
WASHINGTON May 21, 2014 (AP)

On the eve of a critical Senate vote, the Obama administration signaled it will publicly reveal a secret memo describing its legal justification for using drones to kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism overseas.

Two administration officials told The Associated Press that the Justice Department has decided not to appeal a court order requiring disclosure of a redacted version of the memo under the Freedom of Information Act. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

The decision to release the documents comes a day before the Senate is to vote on advancing President Barack Obama's nomination of the memo's author, Harvard professor and former Justice Department official David Barron, to sit on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had vowed to attempt to block Barron's confirmation with a filibuster if the documents were not made public. Paul issued a statement Tuesday saying he still opposes Barron's nomination.

...

Until now, the administration has fought in court to keep the writings from public view. But administration officials said that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. has decided not appeal an April 21 ruling requiring disclosure by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and that Attorney General Eric Holder concurred with his opinion.

The release could take some time, since the redactions are subject to court approval. And the administration also is insisting that a classified ruling on the case also be redacted to protect information classified for national security, but not the legal reasoning, one of the officials said.

...

read more:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-sources-justice-dept-reveal-drone-memo-23802330?singlePage=true

[jct74]

another win for Rand, but I wonder if this changes his plans to filibuster at all...

[francisco]

Interesting thing about Rand's tactics: here and in other areas, he's actually forcing the administration to change its behavior. He is bringing about real changes in the direction of Liberty.

[radiofriendly]

This might just be PERFECT TIMING. Imagine if the memo is actually released during the 'extended' speech from Sen. Paul?

When you read the story, you see that the Obama admin seems to see that they may lose another court appeal - and have to show the memo anyway. So, they may be in a bind to release the memo regardless of Rand Paul's pressure. This could be an amazing media coup tomorrow....

(Praise God!)

[anaconda]

...

[anaconda]

This might just be PERFECT TIMING. Imagine if the memo is actually released during the 'extended' speech from Sen. Paul?

When you read the story, you see that the Obama admin seems to see that they may lose another court appeal - and have to show the memo anyway. So, they may be in a bind to release the memo regardless of Rand Paul's pressure. This could be an amazing media coup tomorrow....

(Praise God!)

Yet again - plenty of time for legislators to read things before voting... :rolleyes:

Does Rand really want the "redacted" version? What kind of silliness is that? And, weren't there several "memos?" We're getting one? Dumbed down with black ink?

[eduardo89]

another win for Rand, but I wonder if this changes his plans to filibuster at all...

I hope not, he's already said Barron is unfit to serve as a judge.

[Inkblots]

Interesting thing about Rand's tactics: here and in other areas, he's actually forcing the administration to change its behavior. He is bringing about real changes in the direction of Liberty.

This needs to be repeated to all the Rand critics and doubters out there as often as possible.

[Vanguard101]

WASHINGTON — Facing the potential defeat of an appeals court nominee, the Obama administration decided Tuesday to publicly release much of a classified memo written by the nominee that signed off on the targeted killing an American accused of being a terrorist.

The solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., made the call to release the secret memo — and not appeal a court order requiring its disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act — and informed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. of his decision this week, according to two administration officials.

The White House was informed Tuesday. But the memo will not be released right away because officials said they needed time to redact it and to prepare an appeal asking the court not to reveal classified sections of a federal appeals court ruling last month requiring that most of the memo be made public.

The New York Times was a plaintiff in the case, and a parallel case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling told the government precisely which sections of the memo to release and which to redact.

The memo was written by David J. Barron, a Harvard Law professor and former acting chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who is Mr. Obama’s choice to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.

As a Justice Department lawyer, Mr. Barron wrote two memos concluding that it would be lawful to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen living in Yemen, based on intelligence agencies’ conclusion that he was a senior operational terrorist plotting attacks against the United States and that his capture was not feasible. The lawsuit focused on the second and longer of those memos. Mr. Awlaki was killed by an American drone strike in September 2011.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, had promised to slow down Mr. Barron’s confirmation if the administration did not allow senators to view all of Mr. Barron’s memos or release redacted versions to the public.

The Senate was expected to take a procedural vote on Mr. Barron’s nomination on Wednesday, with a final confirmation vote tentatively scheduled for Thursday. Libertarian-leaning senators in both parties had expressed reservations about the nomination, and some conservatives also argued that he was too liberal on other issues.

A spokesman for Mr. Paul said the senator would still take the Senate floor on Wednesday for a filibuster-style protest of Mr. Barron’s nomination. In a statement released Tuesday night, Mr. Paul said, “There is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a president is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”

Last year, Mr. Paul used the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency to stage a nearly 13-hour filibuster. In that case, he was protesting the administration’s refusal to rule out the use of drone strikes on American soil in “extraordinary circumstances,” like the Sept. 11 attacks.

The White House is hoping that its promise to release a redacted version of the main Awlaki memo may help Mr. Barron secure the 51 Democratic votes he needs to secure confirmation.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, who is locked in a close re-election fight, had said he could not support the nomination if the White House did not release some of his legal opinions. After the administration’s announcement on Tuesday, he said he was “now able to support the nomination of David Barron.”

“This is a welcome development for government transparency and affirms that although the government does have the right to keep national security secrets, it does not get to have secret law,” Mr. Udall said. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, called the decision “a very constructive step.”

“The government claims authority to carry out targeted killings of Americans deemed to threaten national security — the public surely has a right to know the breadth of the authority the government is claiming as well as the legal basis for that authority,” said Jameel Jaffer, an A.C.L.U. lawyer. “We’re hopeful that the decision to release the memo signals a broader shift in the government’s approach to transparency about this program.”

[limequat]

This needs to be repeated to all the Rand critics and doubters out there as often as possible.

I want Rand to say it on TV. "I made Obama back down."

[ClydeCoulter]

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Hey, look! Whistle Blowers! ^

[kcchiefs6465]

The title is somewhat misleading.

It's a redacted memo. How much has been redacted is yet to be seen.

They've released documents with more words omitted than present.

[Occam's Banana]

Interesting thing about Rand's tactics: here and in other areas, he's actually forcing the administration to change its behavior. He is bringing about real changes in the direction of Liberty.

Many props to Rand for making a much larger public issue out of this than it otherwise would be - but he hasn't really forced the administration to actually change its behavior in any significant way. This announcement of the release of a single, redacted memo at some unspecified time in the future is a political stratagem aimed squarely and solely at sucking some of the wind out Rand's sails on the eve of his threatened "filibuster" of the Barron confirmation (which will almost certainly go through, despite Rand's opposition).

When it comes to criminal drone-bombings, nothing is going to change - the administration is just gonna keep on keepin' on ...

[twomp]

I already know what the memo will say. It will say the President has the right to kill an American citizen because terrorism. That's why. Terrorism, what other reason do they need?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yxYG1S44B30/S_NOhTM5cEI/AAAAAAAAAPc/U-JMPy2sVAI/s1600/OBAMA+Point.jpg

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/art.bush.tue.afp.gi.jpg

[mczerone]

“We’re hopeful that the decision to release the memo signals a broader shift in the government’s approach to transparency about this program.”

Lol. Keep hoping, Charlie Brown.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Let's not forget, zero rights for Americans... the next target?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY

[Occam's Banana]

The █████ is ███████████████████.

It's a ████████████. ████████ has been ████████ is ██████████████.

They've ██████████████████ with ██████████████████ than ███████.

FTFY

[kcchiefs6465]

FTFY
I'm sure you know that that is how many of them read. It's a joke, their 'disclosures.'

I think it will be somewhat readable (being the attention on it) but anything relevant will be redacted. They are well aware that they are violating international law as well as the Constitution. However many taxpayer dollars go towards their legal defense, (I don't even want to know), surely they know what is incriminating and what is not and make overly cautious considerations in that regard. The State Secrets privilege will be invoked to shield what is incriminating and a lot of times trivial (or perhaps not, depending on the information already known and other available documents that may come forth) information is redacted. There's no apparent rhyme or reason to me with regards to a lot of it (though if the information/crimes weren't compartmentalized, finding the motivation wouldn't be as difficult). The memo I should lose sleep over has been gone over with a fine tooth comb, finely, for a while, and I can bet before it comes out, hardly a thing, lest it be beneficial to their propagandist position, will be mentioned. Certainly not the legal or Constitutional justifications for assassinating American citizens without trial, as there are none, though they may do their best to legalese phrases together... and the people are so goddamned retarded they'll probably applaud their own possible incineration.

I know you know all of this but feel it would be an opportunity missed if I didn't shed a little more light on what the situation really is. There are people who frequent but don't post and if I can at all change their attitude my appearing to be patronizing tone was worth it. I do mean this post with all due respect.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm sure you know that that is how many of them read. It's a joke, their 'disclosures.'

I think it will be somewhat readable (being the attention on it) but anything relevant will be redacted. They are well aware that they are violating international law as well as the Constitution. However many taxpayer dollars go towards their legal defense, (I don't even want to know), surely they know what is incriminating and what is not and make overly cautious considerations in that regard. The State Secrets privilege will be invoked to shield what is incriminating and a lot of times trivial (or perhaps not, depending on the information already known and other available documents that may come forth) information is redacted. There's no apparent rhyme or reason to me with regards to a lot of it (though if the information/crimes weren't compartmentalized, finding the motivation wouldn't be as difficult). The memo I should lose sleep over has been gone over with a fine tooth comb, finely, for a while, and I can bet before it comes out, hardly a thing, lest it be beneficial to their propagandist position, will be mentioned. Certainly not the legal or Constitutional justifications for assassinating American citizens without trial, as there are none, though they may do their best to legalese phrases together... and the people are so goddamned retarded they'll probably applaud their own possible incineration.

I know you know all of this but feel it would be an opportunity missed if I didn't shed a little more light on what the situation really is. There are people who frequent but don't post and if I can at all change their attitude my appearing to be patronizing tone was worth it. I do mean this post with all due respect.

I absolutely agree.

Supposedly, they're going to expose enough text to reveal (at least part of) their "legal rationale." If so, I expect that it will amount to little more than positivist declarations to the effect that "We are the law!" and lawyerly jibber-jabber along the lines of "... 'Murrica! Terrism! The President! Terrism! Safety! Terrism! 'Murrica! ..."

[XNavyNuke]

Yet again - plenty of time for legislators to read things before voting... :rolleyes:

Does Rand really want the "redacted" version? What kind of silliness is that? And, weren't there several "memos?" We're getting one? Dumbed down with black ink?

Exactly! The redacted version will only show what the Administration wants to release.

XNN

[ClydeCoulter]

Rand said that he has read the memo. So, if they redact it to unreadable garbage (not that the whole of isn't already), then he can call it out.

[specsaregood]

Rand said that he has read the memo. So, if they redact it to unreadable garbage (not that the whole of isn't already), then he can call it out.

You sure he read the unredactedcensored version? I thought I read they were going to give the senators the censored version to read.