Obama didn't initiate the laws.
<...>
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998, but limited their use to specific targets, such as Osama bin Laden, and only if capture was not “feasible.” George W. Bush dropped the “feasible” limitation and eliminated the need for a specified list of targets. The first CIA drone killing took place in Yemen on November 5, 2002, and included the death of an American citizen, Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish.
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obamas_Secret_Assassination_Program_111229Holder reiterated the administration's position related to those engaged in terrorists activities, and clarified his reasoning. There is no legal argument against targeting people engaged in terrorism on on the battlefield.
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
<...>
The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.
- more -
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.htmlThe administration didn't redefine the role of a "combatant."
The human rights organizations are seeking transparency about the process for making the determination. That is why the ACLU continues to state the administration is simply saying "trust us."
“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world
on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact. Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power.”
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to enforce its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information about the targeted killing program, but the Justice Department and the CIA have responded to the request by saying they can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records.
“The government has told the courts that its targeted killing program is so secret that even its existence can’t be acknowledged, but that proposition can no longer be taken seriously. If the attorney general can discuss the targeted killing program at a law school, then
the administration can surely release the legal memos it uses to justify its claimed killing authority, and also defend its legal justifications in court,” Shamsi said. “The targeted killing program raises profound legal and moral questions that should be subjected to public debate, and constitutional questions that should be considered by the judiciary.”
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-eric-holder-speech-targeted-killing-programHuman Rights Firsts:
Holder Speech Should Clarify Targeted Killing Strategy
Washington, DC – Human Rights First today praised Attorney General Eric Holder’s planned speech at Northwestern University School of Law to address – among other topics – targeting killings, but cautioned that failure to address critical questions about the Obama Administration’s targeted killing strategy will perpetuate concerns about its legitimacy.
“The Obama Administration’s policy on targeted killings will not be seen as legitimate until the Administration makes clear which groups it believes we’re at war with and how it defines who is a legitimate target for killing as part of the U.S. war strategy,” said Human Rights First’s Daphne Eviatar.
The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force allowed the U.S. military to wage war against “those nations, organizations, or persons” who the president determined “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
“Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda has been decimated and driven from Afghanistan. If the United States is expanding the list of targetable groups and individuals beyond those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it needs to make that clear, and to provide a justification for why such attacks are lawful,” said Eviatar. “So far it has failed to do that. Today, the Attorney General has the opportunity to do just that.”
According to Human Rights First, as a first step, the administration should release the legal opinion authorizing the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen killed by a drone strike in Yemen last year. Awlaki was never charged, tried or even arrested by law enforcement authorities on suspicion of participating in terrorism. It remains unclear what legal authority the Administration relied upon in killing him.
Separately from targeted killings, Attorney General Holder is expected to speak about President Obama’s recent Policy Directive issued last week that limits certain aspects of the National Defense Authorization Act, which mandated military custody for terrorism suspects. Human Rights First supports that directive because it believes the NDAA’s mandatory military custody provision would have foolishly limited the Administration’s ability to use its law enforcement capabilities to respond effectively to terrorist threats.
“Forcing terrorism suspects into military custody makes no sense when our law enforcement professionals have capably handled terrorism cases for well over a decade,” added Eviatar.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/03/05/holder-speech-should-clarify-targeted-killing-strategy/
= new reply since forum marked as read
