超级军网转龙腾！法院支持奥巴马当局秘密定点清除恐怖主义嫌疑人
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/20 08:23:50
原文链接：http://www.washingtonpost.com/wo ... 73594efc_story.html
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
正文翻译:
The Obama administration acted lawfully inrefusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorismsuspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruledWednesday.
美国当局曾对恐怖主义嫌疑人展开定点清除行动，其中包括2011年在也门发动的无人机攻击，这次行动导致三名美国公民死亡，而美国当局拒绝披露这些行动的相关信息。在周三，联邦法官判决这种做法是合法的。
But the judge also described a “veritableCatch-22” ofsecurity rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions thatseem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keepingthe reasons for their conclusion a secret.”
但这位法官也将这种允许行政部门报告为合法的安全规则形容为“第二十二条军规”，“从表面上看，这些行动与我们的宪法和法律相悖，所以他们将行动的原因进行保密”。
“TheAlice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” JudgeColleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork wrote in her ruling.
“这种云山雾罩的声明对我没什么影响，”美国纽约南区地方法院的法官科林麦克马洪在她的判决中是这么写的。
The case combined separate challenges fromthe American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times to theadministration’s refusal to release documents about targeted killings under theFreedom of Information Act.
这个案件使美国民权同盟和纽约时报联合起来，在自由情报法的大旗下，向拒绝披露定点清除行动相关文件的当局发起挑战。
“It’s adisappointing decision, but I think it’s important that the judge spent so muchspace discussing the substantive concerns with the authority the government hasclaimed,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.
“这个决定令人失望，但我认为，在讨论与政府声称的权威相关的实质性问题上，法官花费了很大的力气，这一点是很重要的。”ACLU的代理法律总监贾米尔加佛说。
The ACLU lawsuit, filed last February, saidthe Justice and Defense departments and the CIA were illegally using secrecyclaims to deny requests in 2010 for information about the legal basis for thekillings and the selection process for targets. The suit cited public commentsmade by President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other officialsabout the drone program in arguing that the government could not credibly claima secrecy defense.
ACLU曾控告司法部、国防部和CIA在2010年以保密的理由拒绝提供其暗杀和选择暗杀目标的法律依据的相关信息。而该诉讼去年二月告负。这个诉讼引起了针对总统奥巴马、防长帕内塔和其他官员的公众批评，公众在政府是否应该把无人机暗杀作为“秘密国防”争论激烈。
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was killed twoweeks later in a drone strike that a senior administration official said was a“mistake” because someone else had been targeted.
奥拉基的16岁的儿子两周后在一次无人机袭击中丧生，一位高官称这是一次“失误”，因为袭击的目标是另一个人。
After the ACLU suit was filed, theadministration changed its initial refusal even to acknowledge the existence ofthe targeted killing program. Last year, it agreed that some documentspertinent to the requests existed, but said they were exempt from release undervarious FOIA exemptions for secret operations, attorney-client privilege and“deliberative process” within government organizations.
在ACLU诉讼告负后，当局改变了最初的拒绝态度，一开始他们甚至拒绝承认定点清除计划的存在。去年，当局承认部分被要求公开的文件是存在的，但称这些文件由于涉及秘密活动、律师保密协议和政府机构的“审慎程序”而属于信息自由法案中的豁免类文件，所以是不能被公开的。
Government briefs in the case argued thatpublic statements made by Obama and others had referred only to the broadoutlines of their legal rationale, including international covenants on armedcombat and a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force againstal-Qaeda and associated organizations, but had not referred to any specificoperations or documents.
关于该案件的政府简报称，奥巴马和其他官员的公开声明只参考了一些法律依据的纲要，这些法律依据包括关于武装斗争的国际条约和2001年的一份授权对基地组织及其相关组织采取军事活动的国会决议，而没有参考任何特定的操作或文件。
In her ruling, McMahon found thosearguments legally compelling and granted the government request for summaryjudgment against the ACLU and the Times.
在判决中，麦克马洪认为以上观点在法律上具有强制性，但同意政府了的要求，作出不利于ACLU和纽约时报的即决判决。
But, she wrote in an introduction to theopinion, the case raised constitutional questions about executive power and“whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The administration hasengaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even ofcitizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.”
但，她为这个观点做了一点解释，该案件提出对行政权提出宪问，“我们的国家是否是实行法制，而不是人治的。行政机构引发了公众对定点清除行动（甚至针对美国公民，但其行动隐秘且不精确）合法性的争论”
“More fulsomedisclosure” of the administration’s legal reasoning “would allow forintelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it)remains hotly debated,” McMahon wrote. “It might also help the publicunderstand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growingexercise in well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure and (at leastin the minds of some) personal liberty.”
对行政机构的法律依据进行“更加令人厌恶的披露”，“会使存在激烈争议的决策（比如该案之前发生的虐待事件）得到更多理智的讨论和评估，”麦克马洪写道。“这也许会使公众明白，在代价巨大的生命、财富和个人自由（至少是某些人的想法里）方面，没有明确界定的（法律）范围依然很广泛，而且在十多年里似乎会继续增加。”
“However, thisCourt is constrained by law,” she wrote, and the government “cannot becompelled . . . to explain in detail the reasonswhy its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States.”
“但是，法庭是受法律约束的，”她写道，政府“不能被强迫去详细解释它的行为为什么没有违反美国的宪法和法律。”
The ACLU and the Times both said they planto appeal. A similar ACLU case covering many of the same issues remains pendingin the U.S. District Court in Washington.
ACLU和纽约时报都称他们计划上诉。ACLU还有有一件类似的包含了很多相同议题的案件正在美国华盛顿地区法院进行审理。
评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
本帖论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-128486-1-1.html
ObservatoryCrest
1/5/2013 5:54PM GMT+0800
Imagine a police department seeking secrecyin killings.
This is no way to live, this is not way to die.
Local, State and Federal police agencies ? DO respect the law.
This secrecy is OUTSIDE of the law.
we should spend more time with the secrecy surrounding JFK
想象一个用暗杀来解决问题的警察机关。
你们的工作不是这么干的。
各级警察部门，请务必尊重法律。
这种秘密活动是违反法律的。
还不如多花点时间来研究肯尼迪被暗杀的黑幕。
Simeon Jeppsen
1/4/2013 5:34AM GMT+0800
The fact that this issue wasn't a talkabout during the last election pretty much exposes our political process asmore akin to American Idol than an actual democracy.
在刚过去的竞选期里，根本没人提这个案子，这个事实说明：我们的政治制度与其说是真正的民主，还不如说更像美国偶像。
12251202
1/4/2013 5:12AM GMT+0800
I'd like to know why there is not moreoutrage from our friends on the left? When Bush was in office, they took everyopportunity to blast him for infringing on the rights of US citizens and otherperceived wrongs. Now, with Obama as Commander in Chief pursuing the same andin some cases expanded programs, the silence is deafening.
我想知道的是，为啥左翼的朋友们不来表达愤怒呢？布什在位的时候，他们抓住每个机会来攻击布什，说他侵犯美国公民的权利，还有其他的一些莫须有的罪名。现在呢，奥巴马大统领干了相同的甚至更出格的事儿，大家都闭嘴了。
bjacoby1
1/4/2013 5:41 AM GMT+0800
Few friends on the left are not outraged bythe administration's position on drones. They are too demoralized, perhaps, toprotest, because drones, and all the other violations of the Constitution wehave withessed over the last ten years and are now being either ratified orexpanded by this administration, were not deemed to be issues. Romney was notreally an alternative. Ron Paul was, but he was not able to win over Republicanvoters.
左翼鲜有不对当局的无人机攻击活动感到愤怒的人。他们也许是没力气抗议了，因为无论是无人机轰炸，还是别的发生在过去十年的违宪活动，现在都受到当局批准或者扩大化了，（在当局眼里），不是什么大事儿了。罗姆尼不是个好选择。罗恩保罗还可以，但他没能说服共和党的选民。
Jay Bagley
1/4/2013 2:16AM GMT+0800
Freedom is not understood by many in ourown country. It is not synonymous with entitlements. People who live indictatorships are entitled to their allotment of food each day. It is notspecified what color, shape, or size but by the amount whether there is foodvalue or not. You are just fortunate to be alive but don't have a guarantee ofcomforts, such as heat, air conditioning, water (clean or not), and just bareessentials. You aren't authorized to go to sports activities in nice stadiumswith beer for $5 and a wurst for another $7. That is a waste of money that canbe used to go to war with your neighboring country.
我们国家很多人都不理解自由的意思。它不是权利的同义词。独裁制度下的人们每天享受食物配额的“权利”。那些食物不分颜色、形状、或者大小，只分重量。那些食物有没有价值呢？他们能活下来已经很幸运了，没有舒适度的保证，诸如暖气、空调、饮水（洁净与否），都没有，只有简单的基本要素。去漂亮的运动场看球赛，享受着5块钱的啤酒和7块钱的香肠？这是不允许的。和邻国打仗是对金钱的浪费。
This President has done some dumb thingsbut he is doing this as he doesn't understand the impact of what our militarydoes on an every day basis. Killing these people on foreign territories is apublicity that the nations where these individuals are killed can use to theiradvantage. The U.S.is killing terrorists on our terms and sometimes without the country'spermission or knowledge.
本届总统确实做了一些傻事，但都是在不了解军队日常行动产生的影响的情况下做出的。在别国境内杀人是一种有益于被杀者所在的国家的政策。美国是在对付恐怖分子，只是有时候没有得到那些国家的批准或者知悉。
It is allowing all kinds of negativeimpacts without a direct policy on how or when we do this type of operation.Our military has covert operations and also overt. We don't have militaryobjectives or plans that have a President with a policy for many of our shootfrom the hip operations.
We jeopardize our authority and power we have earned and been recognized for200 plus years.
因为没有直接的政策来指导我们何时或如何采取这类行动，难免产生了各种负面的影响。我们的军队秘密或者公开地进行这类行动，没有具体的军事目标或者计划，也没有依靠总统制定政策来应对这些鲁莽进行的行动。
我们危害我们手中的权威和力量，200多年来这种情况已经为人熟知。
FrontierRealist
1/4/201312:15 AM GMT+0800
With "friends" like the ACLU andthe New York Times, who needs enemies.
有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 1:10 AM GMT+0800
Roger Baldwin, the first director of theACLU, was a communist. He explained in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets,"I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, whichincreased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was notan innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
ACLU的第一任主管罗杰鲍德温曾经是个共产主义者。他在他的书《自由在苏联》里解释说：“我加入过。我从不因为作为共产主义策略的一部分而后悔，它增加了公益事业的有效性。我知道我在做什么。我不是天真的自由主义者。我和其他GCD人的想法是一致的……”
Roger Baldwin - Founded the ACLU in 1920.Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. EarlBrowder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLUfunctioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
罗杰鲍德温在1920年建立了ACLU。ACLU有几位重要领导人都曾是GCD成员。GCD的总书记厄尔白劳德曾说ACLU是该党的“传送带”。
Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately forabolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, theabolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who producewealth.
鲍德温也曾声明“我们的目的是社会主义，裁军，最终推翻这个国家……我们追求财产社会共有，废除有产阶级，单独控制创造财富的人。”
lgaide
1/4/2013 1:12 AM GMT+0800
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keepeveryone honest. To paraphrase Michael Douglas in The American President, TheACLU is the one organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill ofRights. That is a goal I can stand behind.
Liked by 5 readers
我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。引用迈克尔道格拉斯在《美国总统》中的话，ACLU是一个以捍卫人权宣言为唯一目标的组织。我支持这个目标。
ozma1
1/4/2013 1:50 AM GMT+0800
"With 'friends' like the ACLU and theNew York Times, who needs enemies."
You do, even though you obviously don't understand what the ACLU does.
“有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？”
是啊，即使你显然不知道ACLU在做什么。
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 2:08 AM GMT+0800
lgaide
12:12 PM EST
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keep everyone honest.
=============
And who keeps them honest? The WaPo and NYT did nothing to inform the peopleabout Obama and his agenda. Their reporting was incomplete and dishonest.
Also FYI, Michael Douglas is only an actor.
“我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。”
那谁来保证他们诚信呢？他们根本没告诉老百姓任何关于奥巴马和他的政策的事情。他们的报告不完整且不诚实。
还有啊额外提一句，迈克尔道格拉斯不过是个戏子。
ricktasker
1/3/201311:50 PM GMT+0800
This is why we have courts with co-equalpower under our constitution. In all these impossible situations, someone hasto be the referee.
Liked by 4 readers
这就是为什么我们宪法规定司法机关拥有（和政府）平等的权力。在那些极端情况下，需要有人来做裁判。
proudvet
1/3/201311:37 PM GMT+0800
it is clear to me that those of you who arecomplaining about this decision were never in a branch of the United States military and thatsome of you may even be supporters of our enemies. Fortunately for those of youwhom I speak, individuals in our military are willing to die by the hands ofthese very same terrorists so you can continue to have the right of freespeech. And for those of you who live in this great country can enjoy freedomsothers can only dream of. Also, please remember that it is the terrorists whokilled and maimed thousands of innocent civilians right here on our own soil.They also continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians in othernations.
我知道，那些不满这个判决的人跟美利坚合众国的军队是格格不入的，那些人中的一部分甚至是支持敌人的。我说，你们这些人很幸运，因为我们军队的小伙子们愿意死在（你们声称要保护的）那些恐怖分子手里，所以你们才能继续大谈言论自由。你们能够生活在这个国家是你们的运气，能够享受别人梦寐以求的自由。还有，请记住，正是那些恐怖分子在我们的国土上杀伤了上千无辜市民。他们在别国仍在继续杀害无辜者。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/7150.html
原文链接：http://www.washingtonpost.com/wo ... 73594efc_story.html
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
正文翻译:
The Obama administration acted lawfully inrefusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorismsuspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruledWednesday.
美国当局曾对恐怖主义嫌疑人展开定点清除行动，其中包括2011年在也门发动的无人机攻击，这次行动导致三名美国公民死亡，而美国当局拒绝披露这些行动的相关信息。在周三，联邦法官判决这种做法是合法的。
But the judge also described a “veritableCatch-22” ofsecurity rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions thatseem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keepingthe reasons for their conclusion a secret.”
但这位法官也将这种允许行政部门报告为合法的安全规则形容为“第二十二条军规”，“从表面上看，这些行动与我们的宪法和法律相悖，所以他们将行动的原因进行保密”。
“TheAlice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” JudgeColleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork wrote in her ruling.
“这种云山雾罩的声明对我没什么影响，”美国纽约南区地方法院的法官科林麦克马洪在她的判决中是这么写的。
The case combined separate challenges fromthe American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times to theadministration’s refusal to release documents about targeted killings under theFreedom of Information Act.
这个案件使美国民权同盟和纽约时报联合起来，在自由情报法的大旗下，向拒绝披露定点清除行动相关文件的当局发起挑战。
“It’s adisappointing decision, but I think it’s important that the judge spent so muchspace discussing the substantive concerns with the authority the government hasclaimed,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.
“这个决定令人失望，但我认为，在讨论与政府声称的权威相关的实质性问题上，法官花费了很大的力气，这一点是很重要的。”ACLU的代理法律总监贾米尔加佛说。
The ACLU lawsuit, filed last February, saidthe Justice and Defense departments and the CIA were illegally using secrecyclaims to deny requests in 2010 for information about the legal basis for thekillings and the selection process for targets. The suit cited public commentsmade by President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other officialsabout the drone program in arguing that the government could not credibly claima secrecy defense.
ACLU曾控告司法部、国防部和CIA在2010年以保密的理由拒绝提供其暗杀和选择暗杀目标的法律依据的相关信息。而该诉讼去年二月告负。这个诉讼引起了针对总统奥巴马、防长帕内塔和其他官员的公众批评，公众在政府是否应该把无人机暗杀作为“秘密国防”争论激烈。
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was killed twoweeks later in a drone strike that a senior administration official said was a“mistake” because someone else had been targeted.
奥拉基的16岁的儿子两周后在一次无人机袭击中丧生，一位高官称这是一次“失误”，因为袭击的目标是另一个人。
After the ACLU suit was filed, theadministration changed its initial refusal even to acknowledge the existence ofthe targeted killing program. Last year, it agreed that some documentspertinent to the requests existed, but said they were exempt from release undervarious FOIA exemptions for secret operations, attorney-client privilege and“deliberative process” within government organizations.
在ACLU诉讼告负后，当局改变了最初的拒绝态度，一开始他们甚至拒绝承认定点清除计划的存在。去年，当局承认部分被要求公开的文件是存在的，但称这些文件由于涉及秘密活动、律师保密协议和政府机构的“审慎程序”而属于信息自由法案中的豁免类文件，所以是不能被公开的。
Government briefs in the case argued thatpublic statements made by Obama and others had referred only to the broadoutlines of their legal rationale, including international covenants on armedcombat and a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force againstal-Qaeda and associated organizations, but had not referred to any specificoperations or documents.
关于该案件的政府简报称，奥巴马和其他官员的公开声明只参考了一些法律依据的纲要，这些法律依据包括关于武装斗争的国际条约和2001年的一份授权对基地组织及其相关组织采取军事活动的国会决议，而没有参考任何特定的操作或文件。
In her ruling, McMahon found thosearguments legally compelling and granted the government request for summaryjudgment against the ACLU and the Times.
在判决中，麦克马洪认为以上观点在法律上具有强制性，但同意政府了的要求，作出不利于ACLU和纽约时报的即决判决。
But, she wrote in an introduction to theopinion, the case raised constitutional questions about executive power and“whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The administration hasengaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even ofcitizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.”
但，她为这个观点做了一点解释，该案件提出对行政权提出宪问，“我们的国家是否是实行法制，而不是人治的。行政机构引发了公众对定点清除行动（甚至针对美国公民，但其行动隐秘且不精确）合法性的争论”
“More fulsomedisclosure” of the administration’s legal reasoning “would allow forintelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it)remains hotly debated,” McMahon wrote. “It might also help the publicunderstand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growingexercise in well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure and (at leastin the minds of some) personal liberty.”
对行政机构的法律依据进行“更加令人厌恶的披露”，“会使存在激烈争议的决策（比如该案之前发生的虐待事件）得到更多理智的讨论和评估，”麦克马洪写道。“这也许会使公众明白，在代价巨大的生命、财富和个人自由（至少是某些人的想法里）方面，没有明确界定的（法律）范围依然很广泛，而且在十多年里似乎会继续增加。”
“However, thisCourt is constrained by law,” she wrote, and the government “cannot becompelled . . . to explain in detail the reasonswhy its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States.”
“但是，法庭是受法律约束的，”她写道，政府“不能被强迫去详细解释它的行为为什么没有违反美国的宪法和法律。”
The ACLU and the Times both said they planto appeal. A similar ACLU case covering many of the same issues remains pendingin the U.S. District Court in Washington.
ACLU和纽约时报都称他们计划上诉。ACLU还有有一件类似的包含了很多相同议题的案件正在美国华盛顿地区法院进行审理。
评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
本帖论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-128486-1-1.html
ObservatoryCrest
1/5/2013 5:54PM GMT+0800
Imagine a police department seeking secrecyin killings.
This is no way to live, this is not way to die.
Local, State and Federal police agencies ? DO respect the law.
This secrecy is OUTSIDE of the law.
we should spend more time with the secrecy surrounding JFK
想象一个用暗杀来解决问题的警察机关。
你们的工作不是这么干的。
各级警察部门，请务必尊重法律。
这种秘密活动是违反法律的。
还不如多花点时间来研究肯尼迪被暗杀的黑幕。
Simeon Jeppsen
1/4/2013 5:34AM GMT+0800
The fact that this issue wasn't a talkabout during the last election pretty much exposes our political process asmore akin to American Idol than an actual democracy.
在刚过去的竞选期里，根本没人提这个案子，这个事实说明：我们的政治制度与其说是真正的民主，还不如说更像美国偶像。
12251202
1/4/2013 5:12AM GMT+0800
I'd like to know why there is not moreoutrage from our friends on the left? When Bush was in office, they took everyopportunity to blast him for infringing on the rights of US citizens and otherperceived wrongs. Now, with Obama as Commander in Chief pursuing the same andin some cases expanded programs, the silence is deafening.
我想知道的是，为啥左翼的朋友们不来表达愤怒呢？布什在位的时候，他们抓住每个机会来攻击布什，说他侵犯美国公民的权利，还有其他的一些莫须有的罪名。现在呢，奥巴马大统领干了相同的甚至更出格的事儿，大家都闭嘴了。
bjacoby1
1/4/2013 5:41 AM GMT+0800
Few friends on the left are not outraged bythe administration's position on drones. They are too demoralized, perhaps, toprotest, because drones, and all the other violations of the Constitution wehave withessed over the last ten years and are now being either ratified orexpanded by this administration, were not deemed to be issues. Romney was notreally an alternative. Ron Paul was, but he was not able to win over Republicanvoters.
左翼鲜有不对当局的无人机攻击活动感到愤怒的人。他们也许是没力气抗议了，因为无论是无人机轰炸，还是别的发生在过去十年的违宪活动，现在都受到当局批准或者扩大化了，（在当局眼里），不是什么大事儿了。罗姆尼不是个好选择。罗恩保罗还可以，但他没能说服共和党的选民。
Jay Bagley
1/4/2013 2:16AM GMT+0800
Freedom is not understood by many in ourown country. It is not synonymous with entitlements. People who live indictatorships are entitled to their allotment of food each day. It is notspecified what color, shape, or size but by the amount whether there is foodvalue or not. You are just fortunate to be alive but don't have a guarantee ofcomforts, such as heat, air conditioning, water (clean or not), and just bareessentials. You aren't authorized to go to sports activities in nice stadiumswith beer for $5 and a wurst for another $7. That is a waste of money that canbe used to go to war with your neighboring country.
我们国家很多人都不理解自由的意思。它不是权利的同义词。独裁制度下的人们每天享受食物配额的“权利”。那些食物不分颜色、形状、或者大小，只分重量。那些食物有没有价值呢？他们能活下来已经很幸运了，没有舒适度的保证，诸如暖气、空调、饮水（洁净与否），都没有，只有简单的基本要素。去漂亮的运动场看球赛，享受着5块钱的啤酒和7块钱的香肠？这是不允许的。和邻国打仗是对金钱的浪费。
This President has done some dumb thingsbut he is doing this as he doesn't understand the impact of what our militarydoes on an every day basis. Killing these people on foreign territories is apublicity that the nations where these individuals are killed can use to theiradvantage. The U.S.is killing terrorists on our terms and sometimes without the country'spermission or knowledge.
本届总统确实做了一些傻事，但都是在不了解军队日常行动产生的影响的情况下做出的。在别国境内杀人是一种有益于被杀者所在的国家的政策。美国是在对付恐怖分子，只是有时候没有得到那些国家的批准或者知悉。
It is allowing all kinds of negativeimpacts without a direct policy on how or when we do this type of operation.Our military has covert operations and also overt. We don't have militaryobjectives or plans that have a President with a policy for many of our shootfrom the hip operations.
We jeopardize our authority and power we have earned and been recognized for200 plus years.
因为没有直接的政策来指导我们何时或如何采取这类行动，难免产生了各种负面的影响。我们的军队秘密或者公开地进行这类行动，没有具体的军事目标或者计划，也没有依靠总统制定政策来应对这些鲁莽进行的行动。
我们危害我们手中的权威和力量，200多年来这种情况已经为人熟知。
FrontierRealist
1/4/201312:15 AM GMT+0800
With "friends" like the ACLU andthe New York Times, who needs enemies.
有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 1:10 AM GMT+0800
Roger Baldwin, the first director of theACLU, was a communist. He explained in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets,"I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, whichincreased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was notan innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
ACLU的第一任主管罗杰鲍德温曾经是个共产主义者。他在他的书《自由在苏联》里解释说：“我加入过。我从不因为作为共产主义策略的一部分而后悔，它增加了公益事业的有效性。我知道我在做什么。我不是天真的自由主义者。我和其他GCD人的想法是一致的……”
Roger Baldwin - Founded the ACLU in 1920.Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. EarlBrowder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLUfunctioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
罗杰鲍德温在1920年建立了ACLU。ACLU有几位重要领导人都曾是GCD成员。GCD的总书记厄尔白劳德曾说ACLU是该党的“传送带”。
Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately forabolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, theabolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who producewealth.
鲍德温也曾声明“我们的目的是社会主义，裁军，最终推翻这个国家……我们追求财产社会共有，废除有产阶级，单独控制创造财富的人。”
lgaide
1/4/2013 1:12 AM GMT+0800
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keepeveryone honest. To paraphrase Michael Douglas in The American President, TheACLU is the one organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill ofRights. That is a goal I can stand behind.
Liked by 5 readers
我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。引用迈克尔道格拉斯在《美国总统》中的话，ACLU是一个以捍卫人权宣言为唯一目标的组织。我支持这个目标。
ozma1
1/4/2013 1:50 AM GMT+0800
"With 'friends' like the ACLU and theNew York Times, who needs enemies."
You do, even though you obviously don't understand what the ACLU does.
“有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？”
是啊，即使你显然不知道ACLU在做什么。
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 2:08 AM GMT+0800
lgaide
12:12 PM EST
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keep everyone honest.
=============
And who keeps them honest? The WaPo and NYT did nothing to inform the peopleabout Obama and his agenda. Their reporting was incomplete and dishonest.
Also FYI, Michael Douglas is only an actor.
“我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。”
那谁来保证他们诚信呢？他们根本没告诉老百姓任何关于奥巴马和他的政策的事情。他们的报告不完整且不诚实。
还有啊额外提一句，迈克尔道格拉斯不过是个戏子。
ricktasker
1/3/201311:50 PM GMT+0800
This is why we have courts with co-equalpower under our constitution. In all these impossible situations, someone hasto be the referee.
Liked by 4 readers
这就是为什么我们宪法规定司法机关拥有（和政府）平等的权力。在那些极端情况下，需要有人来做裁判。
proudvet
1/3/201311:37 PM GMT+0800
it is clear to me that those of you who arecomplaining about this decision were never in a branch of the United States military and thatsome of you may even be supporters of our enemies. Fortunately for those of youwhom I speak, individuals in our military are willing to die by the hands ofthese very same terrorists so you can continue to have the right of freespeech. And for those of you who live in this great country can enjoy freedomsothers can only dream of. Also, please remember that it is the terrorists whokilled and maimed thousands of innocent civilians right here on our own soil.They also continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians in othernations.
我知道，那些不满这个判决的人跟美利坚合众国的军队是格格不入的，那些人中的一部分甚至是支持敌人的。我说，你们这些人很幸运，因为我们军队的小伙子们愿意死在（你们声称要保护的）那些恐怖分子手里，所以你们才能继续大谈言论自由。你们能够生活在这个国家是你们的运气，能够享受别人梦寐以求的自由。还有，请记住，正是那些恐怖分子在我们的国土上杀伤了上千无辜市民。他们在别国仍在继续杀害无辜者。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/7150.html
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
正文翻译:
The Obama administration acted lawfully inrefusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorismsuspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruledWednesday.
美国当局曾对恐怖主义嫌疑人展开定点清除行动，其中包括2011年在也门发动的无人机攻击，这次行动导致三名美国公民死亡，而美国当局拒绝披露这些行动的相关信息。在周三，联邦法官判决这种做法是合法的。
But the judge also described a “veritableCatch-22” ofsecurity rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions thatseem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keepingthe reasons for their conclusion a secret.”
但这位法官也将这种允许行政部门报告为合法的安全规则形容为“第二十二条军规”，“从表面上看，这些行动与我们的宪法和法律相悖，所以他们将行动的原因进行保密”。
“TheAlice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” JudgeColleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork wrote in her ruling.
“这种云山雾罩的声明对我没什么影响，”美国纽约南区地方法院的法官科林麦克马洪在她的判决中是这么写的。
The case combined separate challenges fromthe American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times to theadministration’s refusal to release documents about targeted killings under theFreedom of Information Act.
这个案件使美国民权同盟和纽约时报联合起来，在自由情报法的大旗下，向拒绝披露定点清除行动相关文件的当局发起挑战。
“It’s adisappointing decision, but I think it’s important that the judge spent so muchspace discussing the substantive concerns with the authority the government hasclaimed,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.
“这个决定令人失望，但我认为，在讨论与政府声称的权威相关的实质性问题上，法官花费了很大的力气，这一点是很重要的。”ACLU的代理法律总监贾米尔加佛说。
The ACLU lawsuit, filed last February, saidthe Justice and Defense departments and the CIA were illegally using secrecyclaims to deny requests in 2010 for information about the legal basis for thekillings and the selection process for targets. The suit cited public commentsmade by President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other officialsabout the drone program in arguing that the government could not credibly claima secrecy defense.
ACLU曾控告司法部、国防部和CIA在2010年以保密的理由拒绝提供其暗杀和选择暗杀目标的法律依据的相关信息。而该诉讼去年二月告负。这个诉讼引起了针对总统奥巴马、防长帕内塔和其他官员的公众批评，公众在政府是否应该把无人机暗杀作为“秘密国防”争论激烈。
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was killed twoweeks later in a drone strike that a senior administration official said was a“mistake” because someone else had been targeted.
奥拉基的16岁的儿子两周后在一次无人机袭击中丧生，一位高官称这是一次“失误”，因为袭击的目标是另一个人。
After the ACLU suit was filed, theadministration changed its initial refusal even to acknowledge the existence ofthe targeted killing program. Last year, it agreed that some documentspertinent to the requests existed, but said they were exempt from release undervarious FOIA exemptions for secret operations, attorney-client privilege and“deliberative process” within government organizations.
在ACLU诉讼告负后，当局改变了最初的拒绝态度，一开始他们甚至拒绝承认定点清除计划的存在。去年，当局承认部分被要求公开的文件是存在的，但称这些文件由于涉及秘密活动、律师保密协议和政府机构的“审慎程序”而属于信息自由法案中的豁免类文件，所以是不能被公开的。
Government briefs in the case argued thatpublic statements made by Obama and others had referred only to the broadoutlines of their legal rationale, including international covenants on armedcombat and a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force againstal-Qaeda and associated organizations, but had not referred to any specificoperations or documents.
关于该案件的政府简报称，奥巴马和其他官员的公开声明只参考了一些法律依据的纲要，这些法律依据包括关于武装斗争的国际条约和2001年的一份授权对基地组织及其相关组织采取军事活动的国会决议，而没有参考任何特定的操作或文件。
In her ruling, McMahon found thosearguments legally compelling and granted the government request for summaryjudgment against the ACLU and the Times.
在判决中，麦克马洪认为以上观点在法律上具有强制性，但同意政府了的要求，作出不利于ACLU和纽约时报的即决判决。
But, she wrote in an introduction to theopinion, the case raised constitutional questions about executive power and“whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The administration hasengaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even ofcitizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.”
但，她为这个观点做了一点解释，该案件提出对行政权提出宪问，“我们的国家是否是实行法制，而不是人治的。行政机构引发了公众对定点清除行动（甚至针对美国公民，但其行动隐秘且不精确）合法性的争论”
“More fulsomedisclosure” of the administration’s legal reasoning “would allow forintelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it)remains hotly debated,” McMahon wrote. “It might also help the publicunderstand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growingexercise in well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure and (at leastin the minds of some) personal liberty.”
对行政机构的法律依据进行“更加令人厌恶的披露”，“会使存在激烈争议的决策（比如该案之前发生的虐待事件）得到更多理智的讨论和评估，”麦克马洪写道。“这也许会使公众明白，在代价巨大的生命、财富和个人自由（至少是某些人的想法里）方面，没有明确界定的（法律）范围依然很广泛，而且在十多年里似乎会继续增加。”
“However, thisCourt is constrained by law,” she wrote, and the government “cannot becompelled . . . to explain in detail the reasonswhy its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States.”
“但是，法庭是受法律约束的，”她写道，政府“不能被强迫去详细解释它的行为为什么没有违反美国的宪法和法律。”
The ACLU and the Times both said they planto appeal. A similar ACLU case covering many of the same issues remains pendingin the U.S. District Court in Washington.
ACLU和纽约时报都称他们计划上诉。ACLU还有有一件类似的包含了很多相同议题的案件正在美国华盛顿地区法院进行审理。
评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
本帖论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-128486-1-1.html
ObservatoryCrest
1/5/2013 5:54PM GMT+0800
Imagine a police department seeking secrecyin killings.
This is no way to live, this is not way to die.
Local, State and Federal police agencies ? DO respect the law.
This secrecy is OUTSIDE of the law.
we should spend more time with the secrecy surrounding JFK
想象一个用暗杀来解决问题的警察机关。
你们的工作不是这么干的。
各级警察部门，请务必尊重法律。
这种秘密活动是违反法律的。
还不如多花点时间来研究肯尼迪被暗杀的黑幕。
Simeon Jeppsen
1/4/2013 5:34AM GMT+0800
The fact that this issue wasn't a talkabout during the last election pretty much exposes our political process asmore akin to American Idol than an actual democracy.
在刚过去的竞选期里，根本没人提这个案子，这个事实说明：我们的政治制度与其说是真正的民主，还不如说更像美国偶像。
12251202
1/4/2013 5:12AM GMT+0800
I'd like to know why there is not moreoutrage from our friends on the left? When Bush was in office, they took everyopportunity to blast him for infringing on the rights of US citizens and otherperceived wrongs. Now, with Obama as Commander in Chief pursuing the same andin some cases expanded programs, the silence is deafening.
我想知道的是，为啥左翼的朋友们不来表达愤怒呢？布什在位的时候，他们抓住每个机会来攻击布什，说他侵犯美国公民的权利，还有其他的一些莫须有的罪名。现在呢，奥巴马大统领干了相同的甚至更出格的事儿，大家都闭嘴了。
bjacoby1
1/4/2013 5:41 AM GMT+0800
Few friends on the left are not outraged bythe administration's position on drones. They are too demoralized, perhaps, toprotest, because drones, and all the other violations of the Constitution wehave withessed over the last ten years and are now being either ratified orexpanded by this administration, were not deemed to be issues. Romney was notreally an alternative. Ron Paul was, but he was not able to win over Republicanvoters.
左翼鲜有不对当局的无人机攻击活动感到愤怒的人。他们也许是没力气抗议了，因为无论是无人机轰炸，还是别的发生在过去十年的违宪活动，现在都受到当局批准或者扩大化了，（在当局眼里），不是什么大事儿了。罗姆尼不是个好选择。罗恩保罗还可以，但他没能说服共和党的选民。
Jay Bagley
1/4/2013 2:16AM GMT+0800
Freedom is not understood by many in ourown country. It is not synonymous with entitlements. People who live indictatorships are entitled to their allotment of food each day. It is notspecified what color, shape, or size but by the amount whether there is foodvalue or not. You are just fortunate to be alive but don't have a guarantee ofcomforts, such as heat, air conditioning, water (clean or not), and just bareessentials. You aren't authorized to go to sports activities in nice stadiumswith beer for $5 and a wurst for another $7. That is a waste of money that canbe used to go to war with your neighboring country.
我们国家很多人都不理解自由的意思。它不是权利的同义词。独裁制度下的人们每天享受食物配额的“权利”。那些食物不分颜色、形状、或者大小，只分重量。那些食物有没有价值呢？他们能活下来已经很幸运了，没有舒适度的保证，诸如暖气、空调、饮水（洁净与否），都没有，只有简单的基本要素。去漂亮的运动场看球赛，享受着5块钱的啤酒和7块钱的香肠？这是不允许的。和邻国打仗是对金钱的浪费。
This President has done some dumb thingsbut he is doing this as he doesn't understand the impact of what our militarydoes on an every day basis. Killing these people on foreign territories is apublicity that the nations where these individuals are killed can use to theiradvantage. The U.S.is killing terrorists on our terms and sometimes without the country'spermission or knowledge.
本届总统确实做了一些傻事，但都是在不了解军队日常行动产生的影响的情况下做出的。在别国境内杀人是一种有益于被杀者所在的国家的政策。美国是在对付恐怖分子，只是有时候没有得到那些国家的批准或者知悉。
It is allowing all kinds of negativeimpacts without a direct policy on how or when we do this type of operation.Our military has covert operations and also overt. We don't have militaryobjectives or plans that have a President with a policy for many of our shootfrom the hip operations.
We jeopardize our authority and power we have earned and been recognized for200 plus years.
因为没有直接的政策来指导我们何时或如何采取这类行动，难免产生了各种负面的影响。我们的军队秘密或者公开地进行这类行动，没有具体的军事目标或者计划，也没有依靠总统制定政策来应对这些鲁莽进行的行动。
我们危害我们手中的权威和力量，200多年来这种情况已经为人熟知。
FrontierRealist
1/4/201312:15 AM GMT+0800
With "friends" like the ACLU andthe New York Times, who needs enemies.
有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 1:10 AM GMT+0800
Roger Baldwin, the first director of theACLU, was a communist. He explained in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets,"I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, whichincreased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was notan innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
ACLU的第一任主管罗杰鲍德温曾经是个共产主义者。他在他的书《自由在苏联》里解释说：“我加入过。我从不因为作为共产主义策略的一部分而后悔，它增加了公益事业的有效性。我知道我在做什么。我不是天真的自由主义者。我和其他GCD人的想法是一致的……”
Roger Baldwin - Founded the ACLU in 1920.Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. EarlBrowder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLUfunctioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
罗杰鲍德温在1920年建立了ACLU。ACLU有几位重要领导人都曾是GCD成员。GCD的总书记厄尔白劳德曾说ACLU是该党的“传送带”。
Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately forabolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, theabolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who producewealth.
鲍德温也曾声明“我们的目的是社会主义，裁军，最终推翻这个国家……我们追求财产社会共有，废除有产阶级，单独控制创造财富的人。”
lgaide
1/4/2013 1:12 AM GMT+0800
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keepeveryone honest. To paraphrase Michael Douglas in The American President, TheACLU is the one organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill ofRights. That is a goal I can stand behind.
Liked by 5 readers
我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。引用迈克尔道格拉斯在《美国总统》中的话，ACLU是一个以捍卫人权宣言为唯一目标的组织。我支持这个目标。
ozma1
1/4/2013 1:50 AM GMT+0800
"With 'friends' like the ACLU and theNew York Times, who needs enemies."
You do, even though you obviously don't understand what the ACLU does.
“有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？”
是啊，即使你显然不知道ACLU在做什么。
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 2:08 AM GMT+0800
lgaide
12:12 PM EST
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keep everyone honest.
=============
And who keeps them honest? The WaPo and NYT did nothing to inform the peopleabout Obama and his agenda. Their reporting was incomplete and dishonest.
Also FYI, Michael Douglas is only an actor.
“我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。”
那谁来保证他们诚信呢？他们根本没告诉老百姓任何关于奥巴马和他的政策的事情。他们的报告不完整且不诚实。
还有啊额外提一句，迈克尔道格拉斯不过是个戏子。
ricktasker
1/3/201311:50 PM GMT+0800
This is why we have courts with co-equalpower under our constitution. In all these impossible situations, someone hasto be the referee.
Liked by 4 readers
这就是为什么我们宪法规定司法机关拥有（和政府）平等的权力。在那些极端情况下，需要有人来做裁判。
proudvet
1/3/201311:37 PM GMT+0800
it is clear to me that those of you who arecomplaining about this decision were never in a branch of the United States military and thatsome of you may even be supporters of our enemies. Fortunately for those of youwhom I speak, individuals in our military are willing to die by the hands ofthese very same terrorists so you can continue to have the right of freespeech. And for those of you who live in this great country can enjoy freedomsothers can only dream of. Also, please remember that it is the terrorists whokilled and maimed thousands of innocent civilians right here on our own soil.They also continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians in othernations.
我知道，那些不满这个判决的人跟美利坚合众国的军队是格格不入的，那些人中的一部分甚至是支持敌人的。我说，你们这些人很幸运，因为我们军队的小伙子们愿意死在（你们声称要保护的）那些恐怖分子手里，所以你们才能继续大谈言论自由。你们能够生活在这个国家是你们的运气，能够享受别人梦寐以求的自由。还有，请记住，正是那些恐怖分子在我们的国土上杀伤了上千无辜市民。他们在别国仍在继续杀害无辜者。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/7150.html
原文链接：http://www.washingtonpost.com/wo ... 73594efc_story.html
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
正文翻译:
The Obama administration acted lawfully inrefusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorismsuspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruledWednesday.
美国当局曾对恐怖主义嫌疑人展开定点清除行动，其中包括2011年在也门发动的无人机攻击，这次行动导致三名美国公民死亡，而美国当局拒绝披露这些行动的相关信息。在周三，联邦法官判决这种做法是合法的。
But the judge also described a “veritableCatch-22” ofsecurity rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions thatseem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keepingthe reasons for their conclusion a secret.”
但这位法官也将这种允许行政部门报告为合法的安全规则形容为“第二十二条军规”，“从表面上看，这些行动与我们的宪法和法律相悖，所以他们将行动的原因进行保密”。
“TheAlice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” JudgeColleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork wrote in her ruling.
“这种云山雾罩的声明对我没什么影响，”美国纽约南区地方法院的法官科林麦克马洪在她的判决中是这么写的。
The case combined separate challenges fromthe American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times to theadministration’s refusal to release documents about targeted killings under theFreedom of Information Act.
这个案件使美国民权同盟和纽约时报联合起来，在自由情报法的大旗下，向拒绝披露定点清除行动相关文件的当局发起挑战。
“It’s adisappointing decision, but I think it’s important that the judge spent so muchspace discussing the substantive concerns with the authority the government hasclaimed,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.
“这个决定令人失望，但我认为，在讨论与政府声称的权威相关的实质性问题上，法官花费了很大的力气，这一点是很重要的。”ACLU的代理法律总监贾米尔加佛说。
The ACLU lawsuit, filed last February, saidthe Justice and Defense departments and the CIA were illegally using secrecyclaims to deny requests in 2010 for information about the legal basis for thekillings and the selection process for targets. The suit cited public commentsmade by President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other officialsabout the drone program in arguing that the government could not credibly claima secrecy defense.
ACLU曾控告司法部、国防部和CIA在2010年以保密的理由拒绝提供其暗杀和选择暗杀目标的法律依据的相关信息。而该诉讼去年二月告负。这个诉讼引起了针对总统奥巴马、防长帕内塔和其他官员的公众批评，公众在政府是否应该把无人机暗杀作为“秘密国防”争论激烈。
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was killed twoweeks later in a drone strike that a senior administration official said was a“mistake” because someone else had been targeted.
奥拉基的16岁的儿子两周后在一次无人机袭击中丧生，一位高官称这是一次“失误”，因为袭击的目标是另一个人。
After the ACLU suit was filed, theadministration changed its initial refusal even to acknowledge the existence ofthe targeted killing program. Last year, it agreed that some documentspertinent to the requests existed, but said they were exempt from release undervarious FOIA exemptions for secret operations, attorney-client privilege and“deliberative process” within government organizations.
在ACLU诉讼告负后，当局改变了最初的拒绝态度，一开始他们甚至拒绝承认定点清除计划的存在。去年，当局承认部分被要求公开的文件是存在的，但称这些文件由于涉及秘密活动、律师保密协议和政府机构的“审慎程序”而属于信息自由法案中的豁免类文件，所以是不能被公开的。
Government briefs in the case argued thatpublic statements made by Obama and others had referred only to the broadoutlines of their legal rationale, including international covenants on armedcombat and a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force againstal-Qaeda and associated organizations, but had not referred to any specificoperations or documents.
关于该案件的政府简报称，奥巴马和其他官员的公开声明只参考了一些法律依据的纲要，这些法律依据包括关于武装斗争的国际条约和2001年的一份授权对基地组织及其相关组织采取军事活动的国会决议，而没有参考任何特定的操作或文件。
In her ruling, McMahon found thosearguments legally compelling and granted the government request for summaryjudgment against the ACLU and the Times.
在判决中，麦克马洪认为以上观点在法律上具有强制性，但同意政府了的要求，作出不利于ACLU和纽约时报的即决判决。
But, she wrote in an introduction to theopinion, the case raised constitutional questions about executive power and“whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The administration hasengaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even ofcitizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.”
但，她为这个观点做了一点解释，该案件提出对行政权提出宪问，“我们的国家是否是实行法制，而不是人治的。行政机构引发了公众对定点清除行动（甚至针对美国公民，但其行动隐秘且不精确）合法性的争论”
“More fulsomedisclosure” of the administration’s legal reasoning “would allow forintelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it)remains hotly debated,” McMahon wrote. “It might also help the publicunderstand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growingexercise in well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure and (at leastin the minds of some) personal liberty.”
对行政机构的法律依据进行“更加令人厌恶的披露”，“会使存在激烈争议的决策（比如该案之前发生的虐待事件）得到更多理智的讨论和评估，”麦克马洪写道。“这也许会使公众明白，在代价巨大的生命、财富和个人自由（至少是某些人的想法里）方面，没有明确界定的（法律）范围依然很广泛，而且在十多年里似乎会继续增加。”
“However, thisCourt is constrained by law,” she wrote, and the government “cannot becompelled . . . to explain in detail the reasonswhy its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States.”
“但是，法庭是受法律约束的，”她写道，政府“不能被强迫去详细解释它的行为为什么没有违反美国的宪法和法律。”
The ACLU and the Times both said they planto appeal. A similar ACLU case covering many of the same issues remains pendingin the U.S. District Court in Washington.
ACLU和纽约时报都称他们计划上诉。ACLU还有有一件类似的包含了很多相同议题的案件正在美国华盛顿地区法院进行审理。
评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
本帖论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-128486-1-1.html
ObservatoryCrest
1/5/2013 5:54PM GMT+0800
Imagine a police department seeking secrecyin killings.
This is no way to live, this is not way to die.
Local, State and Federal police agencies ? DO respect the law.
This secrecy is OUTSIDE of the law.
we should spend more time with the secrecy surrounding JFK
想象一个用暗杀来解决问题的警察机关。
你们的工作不是这么干的。
各级警察部门，请务必尊重法律。
这种秘密活动是违反法律的。
还不如多花点时间来研究肯尼迪被暗杀的黑幕。
Simeon Jeppsen
1/4/2013 5:34AM GMT+0800
The fact that this issue wasn't a talkabout during the last election pretty much exposes our political process asmore akin to American Idol than an actual democracy.
在刚过去的竞选期里，根本没人提这个案子，这个事实说明：我们的政治制度与其说是真正的民主，还不如说更像美国偶像。
12251202
1/4/2013 5:12AM GMT+0800
I'd like to know why there is not moreoutrage from our friends on the left? When Bush was in office, they took everyopportunity to blast him for infringing on the rights of US citizens and otherperceived wrongs. Now, with Obama as Commander in Chief pursuing the same andin some cases expanded programs, the silence is deafening.
我想知道的是，为啥左翼的朋友们不来表达愤怒呢？布什在位的时候，他们抓住每个机会来攻击布什，说他侵犯美国公民的权利，还有其他的一些莫须有的罪名。现在呢，奥巴马大统领干了相同的甚至更出格的事儿，大家都闭嘴了。
bjacoby1
1/4/2013 5:41 AM GMT+0800
Few friends on the left are not outraged bythe administration's position on drones. They are too demoralized, perhaps, toprotest, because drones, and all the other violations of the Constitution wehave withessed over the last ten years and are now being either ratified orexpanded by this administration, were not deemed to be issues. Romney was notreally an alternative. Ron Paul was, but he was not able to win over Republicanvoters.
左翼鲜有不对当局的无人机攻击活动感到愤怒的人。他们也许是没力气抗议了，因为无论是无人机轰炸，还是别的发生在过去十年的违宪活动，现在都受到当局批准或者扩大化了，（在当局眼里），不是什么大事儿了。罗姆尼不是个好选择。罗恩保罗还可以，但他没能说服共和党的选民。
Jay Bagley
1/4/2013 2:16AM GMT+0800
Freedom is not understood by many in ourown country. It is not synonymous with entitlements. People who live indictatorships are entitled to their allotment of food each day. It is notspecified what color, shape, or size but by the amount whether there is foodvalue or not. You are just fortunate to be alive but don't have a guarantee ofcomforts, such as heat, air conditioning, water (clean or not), and just bareessentials. You aren't authorized to go to sports activities in nice stadiumswith beer for $5 and a wurst for another $7. That is a waste of money that canbe used to go to war with your neighboring country.
我们国家很多人都不理解自由的意思。它不是权利的同义词。独裁制度下的人们每天享受食物配额的“权利”。那些食物不分颜色、形状、或者大小，只分重量。那些食物有没有价值呢？他们能活下来已经很幸运了，没有舒适度的保证，诸如暖气、空调、饮水（洁净与否），都没有，只有简单的基本要素。去漂亮的运动场看球赛，享受着5块钱的啤酒和7块钱的香肠？这是不允许的。和邻国打仗是对金钱的浪费。
This President has done some dumb thingsbut he is doing this as he doesn't understand the impact of what our militarydoes on an every day basis. Killing these people on foreign territories is apublicity that the nations where these individuals are killed can use to theiradvantage. The U.S.is killing terrorists on our terms and sometimes without the country'spermission or knowledge.
本届总统确实做了一些傻事，但都是在不了解军队日常行动产生的影响的情况下做出的。在别国境内杀人是一种有益于被杀者所在的国家的政策。美国是在对付恐怖分子，只是有时候没有得到那些国家的批准或者知悉。
It is allowing all kinds of negativeimpacts without a direct policy on how or when we do this type of operation.Our military has covert operations and also overt. We don't have militaryobjectives or plans that have a President with a policy for many of our shootfrom the hip operations.
We jeopardize our authority and power we have earned and been recognized for200 plus years.
因为没有直接的政策来指导我们何时或如何采取这类行动，难免产生了各种负面的影响。我们的军队秘密或者公开地进行这类行动，没有具体的军事目标或者计划，也没有依靠总统制定政策来应对这些鲁莽进行的行动。
我们危害我们手中的权威和力量，200多年来这种情况已经为人熟知。
FrontierRealist
1/4/201312:15 AM GMT+0800
With "friends" like the ACLU andthe New York Times, who needs enemies.
有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 1:10 AM GMT+0800
Roger Baldwin, the first director of theACLU, was a communist. He explained in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets,"I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, whichincreased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was notan innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”
ACLU的第一任主管罗杰鲍德温曾经是个共产主义者。他在他的书《自由在苏联》里解释说：“我加入过。我从不因为作为共产主义策略的一部分而后悔，它增加了公益事业的有效性。我知道我在做什么。我不是天真的自由主义者。我和其他GCD人的想法是一致的……”
Roger Baldwin - Founded the ACLU in 1920.Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. EarlBrowder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLUfunctioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
罗杰鲍德温在1920年建立了ACLU。ACLU有几位重要领导人都曾是GCD成员。GCD的总书记厄尔白劳德曾说ACLU是该党的“传送带”。
Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately forabolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, theabolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who producewealth.
鲍德温也曾声明“我们的目的是社会主义，裁军，最终推翻这个国家……我们追求财产社会共有，废除有产阶级，单独控制创造财富的人。”
lgaide
1/4/2013 1:12 AM GMT+0800
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keepeveryone honest. To paraphrase Michael Douglas in The American President, TheACLU is the one organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill ofRights. That is a goal I can stand behind.
Liked by 5 readers
我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。引用迈克尔道格拉斯在《美国总统》中的话，ACLU是一个以捍卫人权宣言为唯一目标的组织。我支持这个目标。
ozma1
1/4/2013 1:50 AM GMT+0800
"With 'friends' like the ACLU and theNew York Times, who needs enemies."
You do, even though you obviously don't understand what the ACLU does.
“有ACLU和纽约时报这样的“朋友”，谁还会对付我们呢？”
是啊，即使你显然不知道ACLU在做什么。
Old USCG RD2
1/4/2013 2:08 AM GMT+0800
lgaide
12:12 PM EST
We need the ACLU and the NYT to keep everyone honest.
=============
And who keeps them honest? The WaPo and NYT did nothing to inform the peopleabout Obama and his agenda. Their reporting was incomplete and dishonest.
Also FYI, Michael Douglas is only an actor.
“我们需要ACLU和纽约时报让大家保持诚信。”
那谁来保证他们诚信呢？他们根本没告诉老百姓任何关于奥巴马和他的政策的事情。他们的报告不完整且不诚实。
还有啊额外提一句，迈克尔道格拉斯不过是个戏子。
ricktasker
1/3/201311:50 PM GMT+0800
This is why we have courts with co-equalpower under our constitution. In all these impossible situations, someone hasto be the referee.
Liked by 4 readers
这就是为什么我们宪法规定司法机关拥有（和政府）平等的权力。在那些极端情况下，需要有人来做裁判。
proudvet
1/3/201311:37 PM GMT+0800
it is clear to me that those of you who arecomplaining about this decision were never in a branch of the United States military and thatsome of you may even be supporters of our enemies. Fortunately for those of youwhom I speak, individuals in our military are willing to die by the hands ofthese very same terrorists so you can continue to have the right of freespeech. And for those of you who live in this great country can enjoy freedomsothers can only dream of. Also, please remember that it is the terrorists whokilled and maimed thousands of innocent civilians right here on our own soil.They also continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians in othernations.
我知道，那些不满这个判决的人跟美利坚合众国的军队是格格不入的，那些人中的一部分甚至是支持敌人的。我说，你们这些人很幸运，因为我们军队的小伙子们愿意死在（你们声称要保护的）那些恐怖分子手里，所以你们才能继续大谈言论自由。你们能够生活在这个国家是你们的运气，能够享受别人梦寐以求的自由。还有，请记住，正是那些恐怖分子在我们的国土上杀伤了上千无辜市民。他们在别国仍在继续杀害无辜者。
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/7150.html
以后清除异己变得很方便呀！目测美国从此杜绝政治犯！
国家恐怖主义
兔子家抓人都不行，美的倒好，直接炸……
非美国公民没问题，以美国公民为对象的话足够触发违宪审查和行政弹劾了
大狼芬里尔 发表于 2013-1-9 08:28 ![]()
非美国公民没问题，以美国公民为对象的话足够触发违宪审查和行政弹劾了
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
这俩货，虽然当时身在海外，虽然当时为犯罪嫌疑人，但他们都是美国公民，定点清除！
“砰”。。。。。。。。 烟消云散
非美国公民没问题，以美国公民为对象的话足够触发违宪审查和行政弹劾了
Earlier, the Times had requested opinionswritten by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the legality ofkilling U.S.citizens following reports that New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been placedon the government’s “kill list” of authorized targets. Awlaki and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, were killed in aSeptember 2011 attack in Yemen.Obama described Alwaki as chief of external operations for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
纽约时报早些时候报道，出生于新墨西哥的安瓦尔·奥拉基出现在政府授权目标的“暗杀名单”上。紧接着该报道，纽约时报又刊登了要求司法部法律顾问办公室撰写的关于谋杀美国公民的合法性的意见。奥拉基和另外一位美国公民，萨米尔汗，于2011年9月在也门的一次袭击中丧生。奥巴马说奥拉基是阿拉伯基地组织外围行动的头目。
这俩货，虽然当时身在海外，虽然当时为犯罪嫌疑人，但他们都是美国公民，定点清除！
“砰”。。。。。。。。 烟消云散