More

Obama Invokes 'State Secrets' Claim To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Targeting Of U.S. Citizen

PETE YOST   09/25/10 06:54 PM ET   AP

Obama

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for death or capture under a U.S. government program.

Believed to be hiding in Yemen, al-Awlaki has become the most notorious English-speaking advocate of terrorism directed at the United States.

E-mails link al-Awlaki to the Army psychiatrist accused of the killings at Fort Hood, Texas, last year. Al-Awlaki has taken on an increasingly operational role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Justice Department said in a court filing, including preparing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in his attempt to detonate an explosive device aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

In its court papers, the Justice Department said that the issues in the case are for the executive branch of government to decide rather than the courts.

The department also said the case entails information that is protected by the military and state secrets privilege.

The courts have sufficient grounds to throw out the lawsuit without resorting to use of the state secrets privilege, the Justice Department said in its filing.

"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."

Al-Awlaki's father, through the CCR and the ACLU, filed the case in federal court in Washington.

"This lawsuit asks for an American court to block the government from protecting its own citizens," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.

"It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism," added Miller.

In a declaration filed in federal court, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was invoking the military and state secrets privilege on information concerning possible military operations in Yemen, procedures the Defense Department may use in such operations and information concerning Yemen's counterterrorism efforts.

Disclosing information about possible operations would enable targets to evade military action and continue to plot attacks on the U.S., the Gates declaration said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta filed a statement with the court stating that "I am invoking the privilege over any information, if it exists, that would tend to confirm or deny any allegations in the complaint pertaining to the CIA."

Regarding the Christmas bomb attempt, al-Awlaki said in a May 23 interview with the media arm of AQAP that "No one should even ask us about targeting a bunch of Americans who would have been killed in an airplane," James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a declaration accompanying the Justice Department papers.

"Our unsettled account with America includes, at the very least, one million women and children. I'm not even talking about the men," Clapper's declaration quotes al-Awlaki as saying.

The lawsuit filed on the cleric's behalf seeks to have a court declare that the Constitution and international law bar the government from carrying out targeted killings; seeks to block the targeted killing of al-Awlaki; and seeks to force the U.S. government to disclose the standards for determining whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

What al-Awlaki's father is seeking would be "unprecedented, improper, and extraordinarily dangerous," said the Justice Department filing, which neither confirmed nor denied the existence of a targeted killings program.

The lawsuit would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the president and his advisers about how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks, including imminent threats, posed by a foreign organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force, said the Justice Department filing.

If al-Awlaki were to surrender to the proper authorities, legal principles with which the United States has traditionally and uniformly complied would prohibit using lethal force or other violence against him, the department filing added.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be ta...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be ta...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,796
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (89 total)
  1 of 15  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MuchMadness 07:17 PM on 09/26/2010
Article 1, Section 8,

CONGRESS SHALL have POWER


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two  Read More...
12:52 PM on 11/04/2010
Obama has been captured by the Right.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Skepticat
Supporting skeptical felines everywhere
09:22 AM on 09/28/2010
Many years ago when I was teaching grade 9's there was a discussion one day on trustworthiness by occupation. Even this class of mostly 14 year olds had politicians next to last on the list - beating out only multi-convicted criminals - and just below lawyers and high-pressure used car salesmen who were perhaps unfairly tied. I suspect that their rating wasn't really much different from most other citizens. I thus find it rather scary that so many people have absolutely no qualms about permitting an elected politician to declare a citizen - even a bad egg - as enemy of the state, order them killed - and prevent any enquiry by invoking state secrecy and preventing any kind of oversight. Sometimes faith can be inspirational and very touching - but such faith in the inherent virtue of politicians seems woefully misplaced - at least on this planet and with our species.
11:10 PM on 09/27/2010
The 5th Amendment provides that: No person ---
shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Apparently we now need to add a provision similar to the following, using I suppose the logic of the "Animal Farm" (some are created more equal than others) and / or Cass Sunstein (do not interpret the Constitution as it was originally understood):

Provided however, neither this Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall apply to the President or any agency he authorizes to order the forfeiture of either the life or property of any citizen that he deems a threat; provided further that neither the President or any person or agency acting in his behalf shall ever be required to disclose either the identity of the person or persons so targeted nor the reasons for which they are targeted.

Does any one remember the old English Star Chamber?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MTinMO
Finding truth & balance
07:09 PM on 09/27/2010
Aren't there video's of this man talking about his efforts to bring harm to America and denouncing the US? I thought for sure I have seen video clips of him. If he is indeed voicing the Al Qaeda rhetoric against us and has played a part in any of the attempts to do damage to innocent civilians like those who happened to be on a plane with any of the failed terrorists, then I don't have a problem with him being declared an enemy of the US. If he is off in Yemen or wherever working with those who want to inflict more harm to the United States and her people, then his family will have to accept the fact that is no longer the boy they raised. Unless his parents are guilty of raising him to be a terrorist, than I can understand that they wouldn't like the action of the government. But he can halt the action by turning himself in and having a trial to adjudicate his guilt or innocence. If he refuses to do that than he will face the consequences.

How it is different from police declaring someone armed and dangerous which frequently ends up with the subject being killed because he doesn't surrender. Surrender would end it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jspkim
05:05 AM on 09/28/2010
why would he surrender himself? He's not charged with any crimes , so there is no arrest warrant issued by the court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MTinMO
Finding truth & balance
05:25 AM on 09/28/2010
We don't know exactly what they have against him, but normally when they have authorized capture or kill they have some type of documentation to back that up. Just because they haven't advertised it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:45 PM on 09/27/2010
"States secrets," again, and again, and again, and again. Looks like it's the only argument they need for any and every case facing the government. Whether it's evidence of Bush administration crimes like torture, or lawsuits brought by people who have been tortured by private contractors associated with the US government, it's always "states secrets" and a threat to national security for any court to hear the case or for the evidence to be made public. Clearly an abuse of power.
06:44 PM on 09/27/2010
November not only represents a mid-term election, it will be the first battle against the attempted coup being perpetrated by this administration.

The Constitution and the rule-of-law have been all but ignored by this President.

It should be painfully obvious by now that our left right battle of ideas must be replaced by all of us with the real battle for the very survival of our Constitutional Republic.

Once liberty is gone, left or right will have no meaning.

Don’t simply surrender your freedom to the false promises of this administration.

Take a step back. Take a harder look. Read other sources.

This is no joke anymore.

This is the first President in US history to order the murder of US citizen.

Once begun, where does it end?

Once allowed, how is it stopped?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jspkim
05:02 AM on 09/28/2010
f&f
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
pcrudy
03:12 PM on 09/27/2010
The lawsuit is bogus and the court should keep it's nose out of this.  It's not their call to make.

 Sure it's a death sentence, (contract to kill) but it's being imposed during a time of declared war.  It's also akin to a government 'subpoena' , which you (not your father or the ACLU etc) can ask to be quashed.   

If he does not want to be killed then he can surrender.  Since he is an American citizen he will get his due process and his day in court and that is when the court's have jurisdiction to oversee the legal/court proceedings.    Until then the court has no right to intervene in this.

Also, the CIA is not controlled by the President, but by Congress who funds it and could make it 'disappear' altogether.  If you have any beefs with the President using the CIA for contract killings during a time of war, that authority comes from we the people, through our representatives.   I am sure the President has spoken with members of Congress about this 'contract', so it's not like there are no checks and balances in place.
02:39 PM on 09/27/2010
Worse than Bush
02:19 PM on 09/27/2010
All that we, the US public, knows about Anwar al-Awlaki has been provided to us by the US government or the US corporate controlled press. Lets reflect a moment ... Has the US government ever told us anything that might tarnish their credence for telling the truth? Has the US government ever told outright untruths to the public? Has the US government ever covered up the truth from the public? Has the US government ever sacrificed truth for political gain? Think of all of these when reading things which are published by the US government.
02:23 PM on 09/27/2010
sorry about the double post ... huffpo is at it again
02:08 PM on 09/27/2010
All of the knowledge that we, the public, knows of Anwar al-Awlaki has been provided to us from the US government or the US monitored press. Just how reliable are these two sources? Do we have any history to lend credence to what our government tells us? Has our government ever told us untruths in the past? Have they ever covered up truths to keep the public in the dark? Do you really believe that the US would never sacrifice truth for political objective? Think!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
"Lois, Mom, Mama, Mommie, Ma"
02:05 PM on 09/27/2010
Obama runs the justice department too? Where is Eric Holder and what does he have to say about this?
02:40 PM on 09/27/2010
Eric Holder is a puppet. Obama is a puppet.

Wall Street runs the right hand, Alxerod runs the left and Emmanuelle runs the mouth
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
"Lois, Mom, Mama, Mommie, Ma"
05:14 PM on 09/27/2010
Isn't the "Emmanuelle" in your reply the porn version?
01:47 PM on 09/27/2010
Anwar al-Awlaki is a dual citizen of the US and Yemen. If he is a mercenary, is that unlawful? US laws don't apply to Yemen. They don't apply to al-Awlaki as long as he is not in US controlled territory. If a US court convicts him of crime by proving his guilt with evidence and witnesses, then petition Yemen to turn him over to the US. IF the US Presdent acts as judge and jury, with no evidence and peer judgment, and orders taking him out, then the US president then becomes legal prey to taken out by his on precedent.
10:49 AM on 09/27/2010
Yea right, abd when will he repeal the Patriot Act as he promised, that's right, never.
02:40 PM on 09/27/2010
You can't believe a word that this guy says anymore
10:32 AM on 09/27/2010
Anwar al-Awlaki is an Enemy of the State and poses a clear and present danger to the safety and security of citizens of the United States. He has sided with the enemy and supports their declaration of war against the United States. He should be stripped of his citizenship.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:46 AM on 09/27/2010
and in other News.

Obama was heckled at a fundraiser for not loving the gays enough.

He responded by explaining that everyone should be shouting and screaming at the Senate Republicans for preventing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Hours later.

A Federal Court just ruled DADT completely unconstitutional.

Everyone was happy, well except the Obama Administration is not very happy about this and then says terminating the policy may pose a threat to the military.

Go figure. Never Mind. Think everyone has figured it out by now.
08:42 AM on 09/27/2010
"Obama Administration is not very happy about this..."

I must have missed that one.
09:13 AM on 09/27/2010
researched. It's not THAT the judge entered the injuction but HOW it was entered. If taken to SCOTUS DADT repeal in a right leaning court will make it harder to overturn. If done legislatively like it was invoked, then the striking down of the ban is MUCH more permanent and that's what the Administatration and Dems in general are looking to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:13 PM on 09/28/2010
Disagree, it will (like everything else) be more permanent, when done by the courts.