Skip to content

Tag Archives: Anwar Al Aulaqi

Another Clue on Anwar Al-Aulaqi

By
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 2:23 PM

A few weeks ago, I wrote a pair of posts analyzing where the notion of imminence comes from in the government’s thinking about targeted killing—and in David Barron’s OLC memo on the Al-Aulaqi strike. In one, I wrote: I am speculating, and I could well be wrong. But I think the source of law for imminence in . . .
Read more »

The Al-Aulaqi OLC Memo: A Quick and Dirty Summary

By
Monday, June 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to mischaracterize the just-released OLC memo on the Anwar Al-Aulaqi strike. Just a guess. So before expressing any opinions on the subject or arguing with anyone about it, I thought I would start things out with a straight summary of the memo, which I am writing . . .
Read more »

A Summary of Friday’s Decision in al-Aulaqi v. Panetta

By
Monday, April 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM

As Ben mentioned on Friday, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a Bivens suit brought by the families of Anwar al-Aulaqi, his son Abdulrahman, and Samir Khan—three U.S. citizens killed in U.S. drone strikes in 2011—seeking to hold various federal officials personally liable for their roles in . . .
Read more »

Judge Collyer Throws Out Al-Aulaqi Bivens Suit

By
Friday, April 4, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has thrown out the Bivens suit by the families of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his son, and Samir Khan, all of whom were U.S. citizens killed in drone drikes in Yemen. Here’s the 41-page opinion. It opens: Because Anwar Al-Aulaqi was a terrorist leader of . . .
Read more »

A Recap of Friday’s Oral Arguments in Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta

By and
Friday, July 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Despite the day (TGIF!), the weather (95 degrees and rising), and other developing national security news, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse security checkpoint was brimming with people primed to hear oral arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta. This being Washington in the summer, interns were predictably everywhere: at the defendants’ . . .
Read more »

Oral Argument Preview: Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta

By and
Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Tomorrow morning, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hear arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss in Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta. The lawsuit was filed last July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of the family members of three . . .
Read more »

The Attorney General’s Letter to Congress on Anwar Al-Aulaqi

By
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

In advance of the President’s speech tomorrow, the Attorney General has just sent this letter to Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, describing the Administration’s legal basis for killing Anwar al-Aulaqi and targeting other U.S. citizens outside the United States. The letter confirms that the U.S. specifically targeted al-Aulaqi because of “his direct . . .
Read more »

The White Paper, the Public Authority Defense, and “Five Truths About the Drone War”

By
Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Earlier this week—at the Week, naturally enough—Marc Ambinder posted this piece, “Five Truths about the Drone War.”  Of the five, the second of Ambinder’s verities struck me as most noteworthy.  I’ve supplied the emphasis to Ambinder’s words: 2. The CIA does not “fly” drones. It “owns” drones, but the Air Force flies them. The Air Force coordinates (and . . .
Read more »

Should Abu Ghaith Have Been Sent to GTMO? Senators Ayotte and Graham (Still) Think So

By
Friday, March 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Wednesday on the Senate floor, three senators spoke about the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute, in a federal court, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham unsurprisingly opposed this approach, and argued instead that Abu Ghaith should have been sent to GTMO for interrogation, . . .
Read more »

Drones, Domestic Detention, and the Costs of Libertarian Hijacking

By
Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM

The more I reflect on last week’s drone contretemps–and what effect the efforts of Senator Paul and his followers has had / may still have on U.S. policy–the more I have a profound and distressing sense of déjà vu. After all, it was barely 15 months ago that a hitherto-unheard-of coalition between what can safely . . .
Read more »

NYT on Al-Aulaqi Operation and Underlying Legal Analysis

By
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

[UPDATED 4:53] Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti, and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have this lengthy article on the hunt for Anwar Al-Aulaqi.  Their piece describes, among other things, the legal analyses that approved of Al-Aulaqi’s killing. Interestingly, the article says that OLC’s legal workup was influenced by “a legal blog that focused on a statute that . . .
Read more »

Rolling Stone Doesn’t Like Lawfare’s Day on the Hill

By
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Over at Rolling Stone, John Knefel pans the House Judiciary Committee hearing today for being too Lawfare-heavy: The House Judiciary Committee held a full member hearing today on when it is acceptable for the government to designate a U.S. citizen for targeted killing – the first hearing to focus specifically on this hot-button issue. Despite the session’s . . .
Read more »

More on Drones versus Enhanced Interrogation

By
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Further to Jack’s post yesterday on the politics of drones versus enhanced interrogation, and my post earlier in the week about Peter Baker’s article about the mounting criticism of the Obama Administration’s counter-terror policies, comes this article by Sara Sorcher in the National Journal, provocatively entitled “Is Obama’s Drone Policy Really Morally Superior to Torture? Bush . . .
Read more »

Tools and Tradeoffs: Putting Out a Draft for Comments

By
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 5:23 PM

My colleague at Brookings, Daniel Byman, and I have written a lengthy paper on the different tools the United States uses in going after citizens abroad believed to have allied themselves with the enemy. The paper is still a draft, but given the controversy over the White Paper, we thought was quite timely. Since one . . .
Read more »

Congressman Rogers on Congressional (and Personal) Oversight of the Obama Drone Program and USG Involvement in Al-Awlaki Strike; and the Implications for the ACLU FOIA Cases [UPDATED]

By
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Congressman Mike Rogers, the Republican Chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed Sunday on Face the Nation much more than I had previously known about the nature and scope of congressional intelligence committee oversight of the drone program.  He also appears to have given the clearest official confirmation of U.S. involvement in the drone strike . . .
Read more »

Are People Overreading the White Paper on Imminence?

By
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 7:25 AM

I received an email yesterday responding to Susan and my post, in which we suggested that that the White Paper had little new in it. Specifically, the email argued that Susan and I had understated the degree to which the White Paper broke new ground on the question of imminence. We have heard this complaint before, . . .
Read more »

Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might…

By
Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM

There’s been a fair amount of buzz over the past few days centered around the idea of a statutory “drone court”–a tribunal modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that would (presumably) provide at least some modicum of due process before the government engages in targeted killing operations, but that, like the FISC, would . . .
Read more »

Andrew Kent on the White Paper as a Plus for Civil Liberties

By
Friday, February 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM

Here’s a counter-intuitive view of the White Paper–from the always-interesting Andrew Kent: Although many critics with a strong civil liberties and human rights bent deplore the DOJ White Paper for various reasons, there is actually something in there they should be pleased about.  The White Paper fleshes out a bit the Obama Administration’s relatively rights-protective . . .
Read more »

John Yoo on Targeted Killing White Paper

By
Friday, February 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM

John Yoo has a piece in the WSJ which argues that the real problem with the White Paper is that it extends due process protections to enemy combatants on the battlefield, thereby threatening to diminish due process at home: The real story revealed by the memo is that the Obama administration is trying to dilute . . .
Read more »

The White Paper and Due Process

By
Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 7:53 PM

The problems that Rick recently identified with how both the DOJ White Paper and its critics treat the concept of “imminence”  — specifically, that they are borrowing a concept generated in a domestic law context that depends on a set of institutions and structures that don’t exist in the international sphere, without acknowledging the problems . . .
Read more »