The Obama Admin’s Targeted Killing Trump Card

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


I had a long post written on this Human Rights Watch letter to Obama administration, but MoJo’s blog software ate it, so I’m just going to link and excerpt:

We write to ask that your administration provide greater clarity about its legal rationale for targeted killings, including the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones), and the procedural safeguards it is taking to minimize harm to civilians.

You should read the whole thing, but basically the key takeaway here is that even (long-anticipated) legal defeats on civil liberties issues, like the dismissal of the ACLU/CCR targeted killing case on Tuesday, don’t preclude continued pressure on decision-makers. In fact, the main point of the lawsuits themselves (which almost always fail) is to draw attention to these issues and increase the political costs of maintaining the status quo. As Benjamin Wittes points out, the ACLU and CCR are too politically sophisticated to think they have a good chance of winning these sorts of cases. They know how the state secrets privilege works. The ACLU’s appeal of the Jeppesen DataPlan detainee abuse case to the Supreme Court, announced Wednesday, will be a really hard sell. But the battle will draw more attention to the state secrets privilege, which is central to the Jeppesen case, and further increase the costs to the Obama administration of using its trump card.

These guys are playing the long game. I won’t be at all surprised if we eventually see the ACLU and CCR efforts pay off in the form of the Obama administration releasing more information about the legal rationale behind the targeted killing program.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate