“A Travesty of Justice”: Judge Throws Out Challenge to Extrajudicial Killings of Americans via Drones

Posted by on April 6, 2014 in Agencies & Systems, Government, Military with 0 Comments

Andream Germanos | Commondreams | 5th April 2014

abdulrahman-al-aulaki_0 (1)

16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, who the Obama administration has admitted to killing in a drone strike.

A US federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s killing of three Americans in drone strokes, a decision slammed as “a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy.”

The case was brought by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of family members of the victims killed in 2011 in Yemen: Anwar Al-Aulaqi, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, and Samir Khan.

The Obama administration admitted last year that it had killed the three, though the older al-Aulaqi, described as a senior AQAP leader and “intimately involved in detailed planning and putting in place plots against U.S. persons,” was the only of the three that was “specifically targeted.”

The rights groups had charged that Anwar al-Aulaqi was put on the government’s “kill list,” and put there “without due process and without any effort to capture, arrest and try him.”  Khan was traveling in the same vehicle and was killed the attack that targeted Anwar al-Aulaqi. Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was killed in a separate drone strike that targeted another individual weeks later.

In her ruling delivered Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed the challenge to the constitutionality of the killings.


The officials named as defendants in the suit, including then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”

Though siding with the defendants, Collyer writes in her opinion: “The powers granted to the Executive and Congress to wage war and provide for national security does not give them carte blanche to deprive a U.S. citizen of his life without due process and without any judicial review.”

Collyer states that the victims’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because they were not “seized,” they were killed, because “[u]nmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture.”

The Fifth Amendment violation does not apply to the younger al-Aulaqi or Khan, as they were not deliberately targeted, she writes, explaining that it was “negligence” that they were harmed as bystanders. “Mere negligence does not give rise to a constitutional deprivation,” she states in her opinion.

For Anwar al-Aulaqi’s due process rights’ violations, Collyer writes that “the Court finds no available remedy under U.S. law for this claim.”

“In this delicate area of warmaking, national security, and foreign relations, the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role. This Court is not equipped to question, and does not make a finding concerning, Defendants’ actions in dealing with AQAP generally or Anwar al-Aulaqi in particular. Its role is much more modest: only to ensure that the circumstances of the exercise of war powers against a specifically-targeted U.S. citizen overseas do not call for the recognition of a new area of Bivens relief,” the opinion states.

The Bivens case, as Politico‘s Josh Gerstein explains, “refer[s] to a line of cases discussing when courts should allow damage lawsuits against government officials.”

“Permitting Plaintiffs to pursue a Bivens remedy under the circumstances of this case would impermissibly draw the Court into ‘the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation,'” Collyer writes, “as the suit would require the Court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets and how best to counter threats to the United States.”

“Further, allowing Plaintiffs to bring a Bivens action against Defendants would hinder their ability in the future to act decisively and without hesitation in defense of U.S. interests,” her opinion continues.

The ACLU and CCR issued statements denouncing the ruling.

“Judge Collyer effectively convicted Anwar Al-Aulaqi posthumously based on the government’s own say-so, and found that the constitutional rights of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them,” stated Maria LaHood, CCR Senior Attorney. “It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy, and for all victims of the U.S. government’s unlawful killings.”

Added Hina Shamsi, ACLU National Security Project Director and one of the attorneys who argued the case, “The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution. It is precisely when individual liberties are under such grave threat that we need the courts to act to defend them.”

____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

More from Commondreams

Tags: , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend