The New York Times is represented in-house by David McCraw, assistant general counsel, who said the paper also would appeal.
"We began this litigation because we believed our readers deserved to know more about the U.S. government's legal position on the use of targeted killings against persons having ties to terrorism, including U.S. citizens," McCraw said in an e-mailed statement. "Judge McMahon's decision speaks eloquently and at length to the serious legal questions raised by the targeted-killing program and to why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully."
A Justice Department spokesman said the agency was reviewing the opinion.
@|Brendan Pierson can be contacted at bpierson@alm.com.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
East End Skeptic
There seems to be more here than a simple FOIA request battle with the Executive branch of our government. On the one hand, any deaths of American citizens resulting from the targeted-killing program is a separate issue from foreign enemies of our country during a time of war (war on terrorism) and defense of our nation from attacks by foreign entities. We do not grant Constitutional protections to foreign persons. That is a right reserved for American citizens. On the other hand, the Executive branch of our government is tasked with all of our safety regarding attacks against Americans by foreign entities.
What is the Times' and the ACLU's agenda? Why is there a deliberate combining of the two very different exigencies. It is one thing for our government to target foreign enemies outside of our country to protect us from an attack. It is quite a different scenario to target an American citizen who happens to be abroad.
Maybe, if the Times and the ACLU really want the information regarding the illegal execution of American citizens absent any due process, they should request information regarding that specifically. To use this issue as a red herring to attack National Security under the auspices of the FOIA is a bit partisan and political and should be avoided by the ACLU at least.
The New York TImes can be as political and partisan as it's editors desire it to be. Why stop there. However the ACLU is an organization tasked with defending the rights of Americans, not defending the rights of Foreign Enemies of the United States abroad.
-
East End Skeptic
There seems to be more here than a simple FOIA request battle with the Executive branch of our government. On the one hand, any deaths of American citizens resulting from the targeted-killing program is a separate issue from foreign enemies of our country during a time of war (war on terrorism) and defense of our nation from attacks by foreign entities. We do not grant Constitutional protections to foreign persons. That is a right reserved for American citizens. On the other hand, the Executive branch of our government is tasked with all of our safety regarding attacks against Americans by foreign entities.
What is the Times' and the ACLU's agenda? Why is there a deliberate combining of the two very different exigencies. It is one thing for our government to target foreign enemies outside of our country to protect us from an attack. It is quite a different scenario to target an American citizen who happens to be abroad.
Maybe, if the Times and the ACLU really want the information regarding the illegal execution of American citizens absent any due process, they should request information regarding that specifically. To use this issue as a red herring to attack National Security under the auspices of the FOIA is a bit partisan and political and should be avoided by the ACLU at least.
The New York TImes can be as political and partisan as it's editors desire it to be. Why stop there. However the ACLU is an organization tasked with defending the rights of Americans, not defending the rights of Foreign Enemies of the United States abroad.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments