Civil rights groups challenge US plans to kill terrorist suspects abroad

Two civil liberties groups are challenging the Obama Administration's assertion that it can carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens who are terrorism suspects, but who are residing abroad outside of a conflict zone. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit on Monday. Defenders of the program say if the lawsuit is successful, it would severely hamper the country’s ability to defend itself. But the ACLU argues killing U.S. citizens in foreign countries violates the constitution and international law. FSRN’s Jacob Fenston reports.

TRANSCRIPT:
At the heart of the case is American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who is now residing in Yemen. Government officials claim al-Aulaqi is inspiring terrorist attacks, and could be connected to the failed Christmas Day bombing last year. The U.S. government put him on a secret “targeted killing” list. According to news reports, he survived numerous assassination attempts, including a U.S.-assisted attack in Yemen in December 2009. That attack reportedly killed more than 40 civilians.

Ben Wizner is one of the ACLU’s lawyers working on the al-Aulaqi case. He says both U.S. and international law prohibit targeted killings outside a conflict zone.

BEN WIZNER: The United States is not at war with Yemen, or within Yemen. People in Yemen are civilians who are far away from any recognized battlefield, and therefore, whether they are U.S. citizens or not U.S. citizens, they should not be targeted for death.

According to the lawsuit, government officials have also not publicly indicted al-Aulaqi on any terrorism charges.

Wizner says the CIA is acting as judge, jury and executioner.

WIZNER: There’s a real danger in treating the entire globe as a battlefield, and all terrorism suspects, wherever they might be located, as combatants who can be killed without legal process, rather than indicted, charged, convicted and sentenced, the way the law requires.

Both the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have previously questioned whether the CIA’s drone attacks in Pakistan are legal. Drone strikes there have increased under the Obama administration and have killed many civilians. In the lawsuit filed Monday, plaintiffs asked the court to declare if U.S. and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict.

Obama administration officials have publicly argued they do have the authority to conduct targeted killings, both of U.S. citizens and foreigners. State Department lawyer Harold Koh made the case in a speech last March:

HAROLD KOH: The U.S. has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high level al-Qaida figures who are planning attacks.

Some Conservatives blasted the lawsuit, including lawyer David Rivkin, who wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

DAVID RIVKIN: The notion which the critics of this policy are propounding, that there’s somehow an artificial distinction between a couple pieces of real estate, and everywhere else is a sanctuary is absurd. That’s not what the laws of war stand for, and that’s not what common sense stands for.

But the suit may be dismissed before lawyers have a chance to hash it all out in court. William Banks is the Director of Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. He says even if ACLU lawyers get past initial hurdles, they’ll probably be stopped by the state secrets privilege. That’s because part of the lawsuit challenges the criteria the government uses when compiling the targeted killing list.

WILLIAM BANKS: That set of criteria if it’s set to writing would be a top-secret document, and it’s highly unlikely it would ever see the light of day.

Banks says it will be several months before the court has an answer either way.

- Jacob Fenston, FSRN, Washington.