Court releases memo of U.S. justifying drone attacks on citizens

WASHINGTON Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:23pm EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday released a redacted version of the U.S. Justice Department's memorandum of justification for a 2011 drone attack that killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American-born Islamist preacher suspected of having ties to al Qaeda.

The memo says that because the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it was legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to attack him with a drone even though he was a U.S. citizen.

The memo says the killing was further justified under Congressional authorization for the use of U.S. military force following the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked-plane attacks.

The Obama administration released the memo in response to a court order following Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times.

"High-level government officials have concluded, on the basis of al-Aulaqi's activities in Yemen, that al-Aulaqi is a leader of (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) whose activities in Yemen pose a 'continued an imminent threat' of violence to United states persons and interests," the document said.

Awlaki was killed in what U.S. officials acknowledged at the time was a CIA drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Another American citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in the same attack, although U.S. officials have said that Khan was not intentionally targeted.

Although other Americans have appeared in Internet postings or propaganda as spokesmen or representatives for al Qaeda or its affiliates, Awlaki is the only American citizen who U.S. government officials have acknowledged was directly targeted for a U.S. drone strike.

Human rights advocates criticized the legal justification outlined in the memo as overly broad and a distortion of the law.

Pardiss Kebriaei, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, described the justification as “highly aggressive and controversial interpretations of international law.”

(Additional reporting by Aruna Viswanatha)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
I suppose it’s not much different from killing confederate rebels during the Civil War.

Jun 23, 2014 4:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:
If you take up arms against the United States, it does not matter if you are a citizen or not. You’d better have bigger arms. The confederacy was a flop. Al Qaeda is a more recent flop. Just quit shooting at us, and you’ll be spared. Not that complicated.

Jun 23, 2014 6:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AnLaN wrote:
Anwar al Awlaki was supporting the killing of innocent people hiding behind a jihadi banner. He deserved what he got. He is no better than any another murderer being executed.

Jun 23, 2014 6:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures