Obama Administration Forced To Release Drone Kill List PlaybookBy Derrick Broze Late Friday evening the Obama Administration released a redacted version of the Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG), sometimes known as the Playbook or disposition matrix, which guides the Obama Administrations decisions on the U.S. governments drone assassination program. The PPG was originally released in May 2013, but the full content of the documenthas remained a secret. The public has only ever seen a fact sheet that describesthe document. In February, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahonordered the Obama Administration to hand over the PPG and other documentsrelated to the targeted drone assassination program for the courts review and possible release to the public. The three documents relate tothe law and policy that govern the controversial program. The ruling came as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).The ACLU has also been fighting to uncover new information related to the so-called Presidential Kill List, also known as the disposition matrix. The Washington Post first reported on the disposition matrix in 2012: Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the disposition matrix. The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the disposition of suspects beyond the reach of American drones. Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nations counterterrorism ranks: The United States conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years. After initially fighting the release of the full document, the federal government decided it would not fight to keep the entire PPG a secret, but instead would release a redacted version for public viewing. The PPG and several other documents were handed over to the ACLU on Friday. Courthouse News reports: President Barack Obamas approval is required when drone strikes target a U.S. citizen or when administrative officials disagree on whether a non-American target should be killed. If the principal of the nominating operating agency, after review by principals and deputies, continues to support the operational plan, the plan shall be presented to the president for decision, along with the views expressed by departments and agencies during the [National Security Council] process, the PPG states. An appropriate [National Security Staff] official will communicate, in writing, the presidents decision, including any terms or conditions placed on any approval to appropriate departments and agencies. The PPG should have been released three years ago, but its release now will inform an ongoing debate about the lawfulness and wisdom of the governments counterterrorism policies. The release of the PPG and related documents is also a timely reminder of the breadth of the powers that will soon be in the hands of another president, said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU Deputy Legal Director. One particularly interesting aspect of the PPG is that the document is unique in the sense that it is the only one of its kind. Obamas normal practice when issuing national security orders has been to release Presidential Policy Directives, a set of numbered directives that occasionally get released publicly, writes The New Republic. The word Guidance would suggest this is a weaker kind of order than a Directive.' The Obama administration also released a Department of Defense document from 2014 which explains how the administration defines associated forces that are targeted with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The groups who are targeted were redacted in the release. Despite the new details about the drone program, the ACLU remains skeptical. Brett Max Kaufman, Staff Attorney with the ACLU Center for Democracy, saystoo much remains secret about the program, including where the PPG actually applies, what its general standards mean in practice, and how evidence that those standards have been met is evaluatedin addition to who the government is killing, and where. The fight for details on the PPG is only one aspect of the fight for transparency as it relates to the U.S. governments drone program. For the last four years, New York Times journalist Charlie Savage has waged a legal battle against the Obama administration, seeking to reveal the governments legal justifications for assassinating terror suspects without a trial. Specifically, Savage sued the Obama administration in an attempt to obtain details about the murder of al-Qaeda affiliated cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and eventually found himself on the U.S. governments radar under suspicion of terrorism. On September 30, 2011, drones sent by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command flew into Yemen and bombed al-Awlaki and al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan. The case drew public criticism not only because al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but because several weeks after his death, another American drone killed al-Awlakis 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman. He was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen. A 2014 ruling by Second Circuit court forced the release of a memorandumfrom the Office of Legal Counsel which relates to drone assassinations. The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the release of 11 other OLC memos, but the court protected 10 of them from release. The Times and the ACLU appealed the decision, but a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit recently denied the release of the documents. Despite the American publics lack of knowledgeon theuse of drone warfare, the U.S. government is not showing any signs of slowing down their Drone War. With only a few months left in office, President Obama is poised to hand over thetitleof the Drone King (or Queen) to a new president. What will the next occupant of the Oval Office do with the power to assassinate the enemies of America? Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for selfnewsPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of two books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion. Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link. Disposition Matrix. A fancy term for nothing other than the government ordering hits on people. This is not much different from what mob bosses do. Congress has not declared war for decades, yet somehow we find the moral authority to kill and displace millions of people anyway. I totally agree with you. And further, if the government can do this to anyone they wish, then whats to stop them from enforcing their draconian laws by using drones on us US citizens. Having watched the devolution of the country, I dont make that statement lightly. The King of Drones could maintain his rule by a surgical drone strike to Down Don or Kill Hill. Who will be the next lucky US citizen to be made famous at the behest of the incoming president; as we could assume the the next upgrade to the drone program will increase the likely hood of more martyred patriots? Stay tuned for the next exciting abuse of power to come flying out the White House. Washington DC is the murder capitol of the planet. The power of the drone exceeds and surpasses the 2nd amendments legally armed citizens failure to serve and protect the constitution from domestic threats of terrorism. A drone strike is a terrorist act. If this subject wasnt seriously dangerous I would almost laugh. The title reads. Obama forced to turn over drone kill list playbook. What they REALLY got was a book filled with big black marks. The applications of drones for assassinations (and general localized killing of innocents) is pathological. There has been no war declared, yet our government feels free to send out orders for mass killings of perceived enemies; i.e. anyone they dont like. How can America say it is a civilized nation? Its obviously nothing more than bully similar or equal to the mafia and any other organized crime group. I cant think of a better description. America is an empire, and its seen in the same way all empires have been seen; with.disrespect and hatred. Is anyone but a sociopath agreeing with what America is doing around the world? Not in my experience. And my experience includes what almost every veteran tells me of their experiences in the endless, undeclared wars in the Middle East to protect big oil and create vast profits for the defense industry (a misnomer and misnamed thing if every there was one.) the beat goes on Libertarians reporting on the problem, but not ever working on solutions. And Mr. Broze, is of the anarchoVol variety. At least the minarchists can organize to build a WELL REGULATED MILITIA with the deputizm plan to knock drones out of the sky, and arrest the govStooges manning them from an office. What are the vols intending to do here? The redacted drone-strike playbook says that strikes may be used against terrorist targets when there is near certainty that a lawful target is present, near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, and when the target poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. 