The case of Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, sometimes referenced as Al-Awlaki v. Panetta, brought by the ACLU and CCR, challenges the legality of the U.S. government’s drone strikes in Yemen that resulted in the deaths of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, a minor of just 16 years old. This lawsuit argues that these killings in 2011 were unconstitutional, violating the fundamental right to due process.
At the heart of the case is the U.S. government’s “targeted killing” program, operating outside recognized zones of armed conflict. This program, shrouded in secrecy, relies on unclear legal justifications, internal executive branch decisions, and evidence withheld from judicial review – even after lethal actions have been taken.
Since 2002, and with increased frequency since 2009, the United States has conducted premeditated killings of individuals suspected of terrorism in foreign countries. Anwar Al-Aulaqi was among those placed on a CIA and Pentagon “kill list.” Reports indicate the program has broadened to include “signature strikes,” targeting individuals based on behavioral patterns without known identities. A controversial aspect, highlighted by The New York Times, is the presumption that all military-aged males in a strike zone are combatants unless proven innocent posthumously.
International law and the U.S. Constitution strictly limit the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict. Killing is only permissible as a last resort to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and with due process. Even within an armed conflict against an armed group (which was not the situation in Yemen during these strikes), lethal force can only be directed at those directly participating in hostilities. Furthermore, minimizing civilian casualties is a paramount obligation in any use of lethal force. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta directly challenges whether senior CIA and military officials adhered to these standards when authorizing the strikes.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, born in Denver and only 16 years old, was killed in a separate U.S. drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011, while dining at an outdoor restaurant with his cousin.
The legal complaint filed by the ACLU and CCR asserts that these killings violated multiple constitutional rights: the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures, and, specifically regarding Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the Bill of Attainder Clause’s prohibition of extrajudicial death warrants. The lawsuit further argues that these actions violated international law, which is considered integrated into U.S. law.
The government sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the courts should not intervene in decisions about the legality of these killings. In July 2013, a federal court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on this motion to dismiss, leaving the case’s future uncertain at that time.
This legal action followed a previous lawsuit filed by the ACLU and CCR in 2010 before Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s death, challenging his placement on government kill lists. This earlier case was dismissed, with the court citing the father’s lack of standing and deeming pre-emptive judicial review a “political question” beyond the court’s purview.
An American Teenager Killed, A Grandfather Seeks Accountability
More information about Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi can be found through resources provided by organizations like the ACLU. Further details on related ACLU Targeted Killing Cases are also available on their website.
Read the complaint.
View all of the court filings in the case.
