"Plaintiffs filed their FOIA request on January 13, 2010 and commenced this suit on March 16, 2010. After the district court (Collyer, J.) granted summary judgment to the CIA on September 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal."
"The only issue on appeal is whether the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program".is lawful given that senior government officials have repeatedly discussed (it publicly)."
"Plaintiffs have argued that government officials have officially acknowledged the program in those contexts and that the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the program here is unlawful."
Expedited resolution was requested because of "immense public interest - namely, the lawfulness, effectiveness, strategic wisdom, and morality of the CIA's use of drones" to kill.
The entire ACLU document can be read through the above link.
A Final Comment
Last July, America's " newspaper of record " moralized drone use. Its article headlined "The Moral Case for Drones," saying:
"".moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare."
The article stands in stark contrast to a May one titled "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," saying:
Obama "placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations' process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical."
In other words, he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Despot authority is official administration policy. Diktats decide who lives or dies.
Anyone called Al Qaeda or accused of terrorist connections gets marked for death.
What "moral and legal conundrum" could he face, asked The Times? None whatever. On day one in office, he spurned rule of law principles. It's been downhill ever since.
The New York Times and other media scoundrels march in lockstep. They're comfortable with imperial lawlessness.
Killing by any means has no moral basis whatever. Claiming it makes supporters complicit. Because of its global reach and influence, NYT bosses, editors, and contributors have the greatest cross to bear. Expect no mea culpas or apologies.