Department of Justice: drone strikes on American citizens are legal because Obama and Holder said so

By End the Lie

"Where law ends tyranny begins," seen on the Justice Department building in Washington D.C. (Image credit: joewcampbell/Flickr)

“Where law ends tyranny begins,” seen on the Justice Department building in Washington D.C. (Image credit: joewcampbell/Flickr)

In a court filing this week, Justice Department lawyers claimed that the Obama administration’s drone strikes that have admittedly killed four American citizens are constitutional in part simply because Eric Holder and Barack Obama said so.

While this might seem absurd to the point that it seems like it should be published in the Onion, it is quite unfortunately true.

“The Attorney General’s statement last month that the use of remotely piloted aircraft and the targeting of Anwar Al-Aulaqi were subject to ‘exceptionally rigorous interagency legal review’ and determined to be lawful — along with the President’s statement that those actions were legal — only support the conclusion that those actions were lawful, and certainly were not clearly established to be unconstitutional in 2011,” stated a court filing signed by Paul Warner, a trial lawyer in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, according to Ryan J. Reilly of the Huffington Post.

This came in response to a lawsuit, al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, filed by both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of the estates of three of the American citizens who have been killed in U.S. drone strikes.

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s killing of Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi), his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan was unconstitutional because they were not given the due process demanded by the Constitution.

Of course, in the past Attorney General Eric Holder has claimed that the Obama administration’s secret reviews of classified evidence count as due process and they claim that the letter from Holder to members of Congress and Obama’s speech on national security didn’t change their legal position.

However, that letter and the speech were the first time that the Obama administration ever formally acknowledged that they killed an American citizen.

The government claims that they deserve qualified immunity because the plaintiffs “failed to allege the violation of any clearly established constitutional rights.”

The government claims that the statements from Obama and Holder are “holly consistent with Defendants’ showing that Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s due process rights were not violated.”

When the legal basis for the targeted killings was challenged in court previously, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration could simply claim they had a legal basis while never explaining it.

Furthermore, in the Justice Department’s leaked whitepaper on the targeted killing of Americans, anything resembling due process was glaringly absent.

Most astounding of all is that the Obama administration argued in their filing that the judicial branch “is ill-suited” to evaluate the many “military, intelligence, and foreign policy considerations” behind the choice to kill the American citizens.

The government added that because 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Khan were not specifically targeted by the government, as is their claim, the plaintiffs cannot claim that they were subjected to an unconstitutional process.

The fact that the government is now claiming that the judicial branch simply can’t evaluate the killing of Americans shouldn’t be all that surprising given the aforementioned federal judge’s decision. After all, that judge didn’t even read the legal memo supposedly outlining the government’s legal basis for killing Americans.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at [email protected]

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

2 Responses to Department of Justice: drone strikes on American citizens are legal because Obama and Holder said so

  1. Nora June 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM

    Well what the hell is wrong with us declaring that a drone strike on that lying murderer Holder or that Kenyan citizen Obama is legal?

    If he can just speak and have established legal precedents fall away that guarantee us due process, we have really fallen over the precipice. The courts no longer have any valid reasons to exist, since they are not protecting our rights, lets stop funding them. Remove those justices that are sycophants who say yes to anything, regardless of how illegal it is. We need a big broom to sweep all the corruption out of our government, starting with congress, moving to the cabinet and then the white house.

    Reply
  2. Ahmad September 28, 2013 at 7:44 AM

    If these victims would have been any race other than middle-eastern or Muslim, they would have allowed them to go through the due process of law. The Constitution was not made to have people break it’s laws on terms of racism and no proof.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Advertise on End the Lie

Would you like to have your business or service exposed to thousands of people every day here at End the Lie? We have a wide variety of options available all at unbeatable prices. At the same time you will be supporting a truth-oriented alternative news outlet as well as hardworking independent journalists across the United States and the world.

If you would like to know more please email us and please be sure to include the details of what you are advertising, what your budget is and what type of advertising format you are looking for, including size(s), length of advertising period and any other pertinent details. The more information you give us, the more accurate the quote will be. We might also be able to work out some unique advertising tailored to your needs so feel free to contact us with questions and ideas.

Note: our advertisers have absolutely no input in what we cover or how we cover it. If this is problematic, you might want to seek out another news outlet. Here at End the Lie we put the truth first and thus no sponsor will be able to control our content. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and we will not advertise pornography, gambling, drugs, alcohol, tobacco or anything that might otherwise be illegal.