Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
You want to stop the United States from trying to kill you? Then come out of hiding overseas and make your constitutional argument that the United States has no right to put you on its "kill" list. That's the loud message a federal trial judge in Washington sent Tuesday to Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the radical American-born Muslim cleric who has been linked to several of the biggest terror-law cases of the past few years and who is now evidently hiding out in Yemen.
U.S. District Judge John Bates' highly anticipated ruling also contained another message -- this one aimed at the White House and the Pentagon -- which is sure to have Washington's legal and political communities buzzing over the next few days and weeks. Recognizing that his conclusion was "somewhat unsettling," Judge Bates nevertheless conceded that there are "circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable." Good news for counterterrorism officials. Good news for our spies and soldiers overseas. Bad news for terror suspects like Al-Aulaqi. (I have used here the judge's spelling of the suspect's name rather than the more commonly used "Al Awlaki").

Earlier this year, Al-Aulaqi reportedly was placed on a secret government list of "targeted" terrorists whose capture or death was approved in advance by U.S. officials. This occurred, in part, because Al Aulaqi's name kept coming up in high-profile terror investigations; the Fort Hood massacre involving Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan, the so-called "Christmas Day" bombing attempt by suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and the "Times Square" bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad. American officials assert that Al Aulaqi is a serious and dangerous player in al-Qaeda operations in the Arabian Peninsula. The New York Times labels him "an eloquent Muslim cleric who has turned the Web into a tool for extremist indoctrination. Mr Awlaki is perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States."

Upon hearing the news of his son's dire classification, and evidently without first checking with Junior in Yemen, Al-Aulaqi's father promptly filed a lawsuit against the government seeking a judicial injunction precluding U.S. forces from killing his son. The lawsuit alleged that the government's program, targeted toward Al Aulaqi, countenances an "extrajudicial killing" that violates his constitutional rights and other protections guaranteed to him by law. Federal lawyers promptly asked the courts to toss out the case -- invoking the controversial "state secrets" doctrine in doing so -- and that's precisely what Judge Bates did. On Tuesday, the veteran jurist with plenty of experiences in terror law cases since September 11, 2001, roundly rejected and dismissed the lawsuit.

Judge Bates did so for many different reasons. He ruled that Al-Aulaqi's father had not satisfied the many requirements necessary to pursue this lawsuit on behalf of his son. There was no proof, for example, that Al-Aulaqi wanted to assert his constitutional rights in federal court in the manner contemplated by his father. Indeed, there was nothing stopping Al-Aulaqi from surrendering himself to the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, the judge wrote. "All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens."

The judge went further in explaining why the challenge to the "targeted killing" program had to go away long before trial. Because it touched upon expert military judgments, he concluded, it was necessarily a "political question" that he was bound to allow the executive branch to answer first. Through his lawsuit, Al-Aulaqi's father had asked the federal courts "to limit the circumstances under which the United States may employ lethal force against an individual abroad whom the Executive has determined 'plays an operational role in AQAP planning terrorist attacks against the United States.' " This Judge Bates would not do. Why? Because, he explained, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:
"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "
Critics of the ruling no doubt will point to this section and complain that Judge Bates simply begged the question of whether there should have been a more thorough judicial review of the claims asserted by Al Aulaqi's father. And it's true. Perhaps if the so-called "target" one day does turn himself in to the embassy in Yemen and then challenges his confinement we'll all get more answers. Judge Bates, however, didn't seem to hold out much hope for that possibility and neither should you. Even while his father's lawsuit was pending, the judge pointed out, Al Aulaqi repeatedly (and quite publicly) spoke out against America and her interests around the world. Such communications alone, of course, would not justify placement on any sort of a "kill" list. But nor do they indicate any likelihood that Al Aulaqi wants to become a civil plaintiff anytime soon.

As for the state secrets doctrine, pursuant to which the executive branch tells the judiciary that it cannot even legitimately inquire into certain matters which touch upon national security, Judge Bates punted. "Under the circumstances," he wrote," and particularly given both the extraordinary nature of this case and the other clear grounds for resolving it, the Court will not reach defendants' state secrets privilege claim. That is consistent with the request of the Executive Branch and with the law, and plaintiff does not contest that approach. Indeed, given the nature of the state secrets assessment here based on careful judicial review of classified submissions to which neither plaintiff nor his counsel have access, there is little that plaintiff can offer with respect to this issue."

It is unlikely that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn Judge Bates' ruling and even unlikelier still that the United States Supreme Court would do so. Al-Aulaqi is going to have to do more from his hideaway in Yemen if he truly wants his day in an American court.
Filed Under: Terror, al Qaeda, Law

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:
Barack Obama

He can shoot at us but we cannot shoot at him. It is insulting, but so what? They are just being insulting. Whatever military person gets him, take out the old box cutter and slit his throat. It will be too bad if a drone just blows him up and splatters him on the walls of his hideout. Oh well, we cannot have it all.

December 13 2010 at 8:08 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

As Gen. George S. Patton said you make your enemy die for his cause instead of you dying for yours. He actualy said country but it means the same.

December 08 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Whever any Administration waves the "state secvrets" flag, I am always reminded that the original case the U.S.Supreme Court heard that established the precedent was based on the U.S. government perpetrating a fraud upon the courts and that nation. A case where government incompetence and negligence caused tthe death of civilian contractors, and the "state secrets" shield was raised in order to hide that neglicence and the truth was that there was nothing classified about anything conmcverning those deaths, except the government's not wanting to admit its fault and refusal to pay compemnsation due the widows and families.

December 08 2010 at 12:54 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply

The District Court's holding seems at first glance appropriate. The political question doctrine takes issues like these out of the hands of the judicial branch, and arguably, rightly so. However, under that "separation of powers" idea, there are limits ("checks") on every branch, including the Executive Branch. The Executive War Powers allow the detaining of an "enemy combatant" for the entirety of a conflict within the country the conflict is centered in (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) and there is no requirement to provide them due process. However, the power to detain enemy combatants without due process only applies to non-US citizens. The Supreme Court's ruling on the detaining of US citizen-"enemy combatants" is that they must be provided due process. Furthermore, our laws apply to anyone "born and naturalized within our borders". The article seems to denote that he was born and naturalized within US borders. Therefore, the execution of Al-Aulaqi, albeit likely deserved, would likely be unconstitutional. As difficult as the idea may be, our laws and principles should not be waived when it becomes difficult to uphold them. If they were as fluid as much of our population would like them to be, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

December 08 2010 at 12:28 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Brandon's comment

Excellent summary of the situation.

December 08 2010 at 1:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I would like to sue the muslim community for placing me and other Christians and Jews on thier "kill list."

December 08 2010 at 11:19 AM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>