December, 07 2010, 11:52am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.orgÂ
Jen Nessel, CCR, (212) 614-6449; jnessel@ccrjustice.orgÂ
David Lerner, Riptide Communications, (212) 260-5000
Court Dismisses Targeted Killing Case On Procedural Grounds Without Addressing Merits
Judge Acknowledges ACLU And CCR Case Raises Important Questions About Legality Of Obama Administration's Claimed Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones
WASHINGTON
A
federal court today acknowledged the serious issues raised by a lawsuit
challenging the Obama administration's targeted killing policy, but
dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal
standing to challenge the targeting of his son, and that the case raised
"political questions" not subject to court review. The Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union filed
the lawsuit in August, charging that the administration's asserted
authority to execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose
an imminent threat violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.
The judge did not rule on the merits of the case.
Despite granting the government's
motion to dismiss the case, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia called the case "unique and extraordinary,"
said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that
the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers
involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional
structure." Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural
grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the
alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas
must await another day..."
"If the court's ruling is correct,
the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted
killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a
threat to the nation," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the
ACLU. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more
inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American
liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in
the president today will be available not just in this case but in
future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future
president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to
be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other
context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use
lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful
oversight by the courts."
The ACLU and CCR were retained by
Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's
decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen
Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the
context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted
killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an
imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the
court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to
place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
Judge Bates did not decide these
issues, however, because he found that the plaintiff did not have the
right to assert his son's interests in court, and "that there are
circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a
U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political
branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political
question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature
of its conclusion."
"The court refused to hear a claim on
behalf of a U.S. citizen under threat of death by his own government
that his personal constitutional rights have been violated - exactly
what the court itself acknowledges it appears no court has ever done,"
said CCR attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. "The court's holding on the
political question doctrine is indeed 'unsettling.'"
Judge Bates asked but did not answer
the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required
when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for
electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial
scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S.
citizen overseas for death?"
The lawsuit was filed against CIA
Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President
Barack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and
Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of
CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.
Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the
National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).
In response to a related case
challenging regulations that prohibited the ACLU and CCR from bringing a
lawsuit on behalf of Nasser al-Aulaqi without first obtaining a license
from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),
the Treasury today issued significant amendments to its regulations.
Among other changes, the new regulations mean that uncompensated
attorneys will no longer be required to apply for a license in order to
represent individuals before any domestic courts or administrative
agencies.
Today's decision and other documents related to the targeted killing case are available online at:
www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings and www.aclu.org/targetedkillings.
Documents related to the OFAC case are available online at: www.aclu.org/ofac
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
US Accepts 'Outrageous' Israeli Assurances on Legal Use of Weapons in Gaza
Palestinian American author and political analyst Yousef Munayyer called the U.S. assessment "absolutely scandalous."
Mar 25, 2024
The Biden administration on Monday said that Israel's use of U.S.-supplied weapons in a war that's killed and maimed more than 114,000 Palestinians complies with international law, a conclusion that flies in the face of multiple court rulings that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza and the assessments of legal and human rights experts around the world.
Referring to a letter from Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said during a Monday press briefing that the Biden administration has "had ongoing assessments of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law" and "have not found them to be in violation, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or the provision of humanitarian assistance."
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had until Monday to certify to Congress that Israel is adhering to President Joe Biden's February 2023 memo stating that "no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit... genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949... or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
"These assurances are perspective, but of course, our view on them is informed by our ongoing assessments of Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza," said Miller.
Palestinian American author and political analyst Yousef Munayyer called the U.S. assessment "absolutely scandalous."
US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller insisted during a press briefing that Israel has not violated international law in its military operation in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/9OP5xRm0Gx
— The Great Investor (@TheGreatInvest2) March 25, 2024
According to Palestinian and international officials, Israeli bombs and bullets—many of them provided by the United States as part of the $3.8 billion in annual military aid and additional emergency shipments—have killed more than 33,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 7, the majority of them women and children.
In December, Biden implored Israel to stop its "indiscriminate bombing" of Gaza. Since then, Israeli forces have killed or wounded over 40,000 people.
Experts have pointed to the types of munitions being used by Israeli forces as a major reason why so many Gazans are being killed and injured. These include U.S.-supplied 1,000-pound and 2,000-pound guided "bunker-buster" bombs, which Israel says are necessary to target Hamas' underground tunnels.
Aided by artificial intelligence-based target selection systems, Israel Defense Forces commanders are approving bombings they know will cause large numbers of civilian casualties. In a bid to assassinate a single Hamas commander, the IDF dropped at least two 2,000-pound bombs on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp on October 31, killing more than 120 civilians.
Even the United States military—which since 2001 has killed hundreds of thousands of people during the open-ended so-called War on Terror—avoids using 2,000-pound bombs in densely populated areas due to the tremendous damage they cause.
Regarding the Biden administration's assessment that Israel is adhering to international law when it comes to providing humanitarian assistance to besieged and starving Gazans, journalist Krystal Ball noted Monday that Blinken "admits 100% of the population is being starved yet somehow certifies that Israel isn't blocking humanitarian aid."
WATCH: "100% of the population of Gaza is experiencing severe levels of acute food insecurity. We cannot, we must not allow that to continue."
U.S. Sec. of State Antony Blinken pushes for an immediate cease-fire and more humanitarian aid into Gaza. pic.twitter.com/U1Mme7fqiJ
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 21, 2024
"This is fucking outrageous," Ball said on social media as critics pointed out how Gallant publicly declared in October that Israel would commit the war crime of a "complete siege" of Gaza.
The U.S. assessment stands in stark contrast with two major court rulings—one by the International Court of Justice and the other by a federal court in California—that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, as well as with findings by at least hundreds of jurists and other experts around the world, including in Israel, that the assault on Gaza is genocidal. Observers accuse Israel of ignoring an ICJ order for Israel to avoid acts of genocide.
On Monday, the United Nations Human Rights Council published a draft report that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The report recommended suspending military aid to Israel in light of its numerous violations of international law.
A growing number of Democratic U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have urged the Biden administration to immediately cut off arms transfers to Israel, citing its illegal conduct in Gaza, including mass killing and destruction and the blocking of lifesaving humanitarian aid.
Also on Monday, Palestine defenders rallied in Washington, D.C. to protest a visit to the State Department by Gallant and to demand an end to U.S. aid and weapons to Israel. Another high-level Israeli delegation's visit to Washington was canceled Monday after the U.S. abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Court Rules Major Wyoming Oil and Gas Lease Sale Illegal for Ignoring Climate Impacts
"This is a huge victory for the protection of our public lands," said Friends of the Earth.
Mar 25, 2024
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management will have to reevaluate the wildlife and public health impacts of a major 2022 oil and gas lease sale in Wyoming after a federal judge ruled Friday that the agency had overlooked "what is widely regarded as the most pressing environmental threat facing the world today" when it moved forward with leasing 120,000 of federal land.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled in Washington, D.C. that the BLM did not halt the lease sale even after it acknowledged that oil and gas drilling on the federal lands could result in the same negative environmental and social impacts as the addition of hundreds of thousands of cars to U.S. roads each year.
Moving forward with one of the Biden administration's largest lease sales despite its likely environmental harm, said Cooper, was illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws.
Representing The Wilderness Society and Friends of the Earth (FOE), environmental legal group Earthjustice sued BLM over its leasing plans' potential impact on the greater sage grouse, an endangered bird species, and other wildlife, as well as groundwater impacts.
The judge found BLM did not complete a sufficiently detailed review of drilling impacts on the greater sage grouse, and relied too heavily on outdated and overly broad analyses of oil and gas drilling in Wyoming.
While the agency has been attempting to "stop the bleeding" of the greater sage grouse, whose population has declined nearly 40% since 2002, the BLM still refused to postpone leasing in a critical habitat for the bird.
The Biden administration also did not adequately explain its analysis of potential groundwater harms, said the ruling.
Despite some conservation strides by the Biden administration, The Wilderness Society's Ben Tettlebaum said the court's decision "affirms that much work remains" to be done. The BLM, he added, "must fully account for the serious impacts of its oil and gas program on groundwater, wildlife, and the climate."
Tettlebaum said the ruling also proves the agency is required to "factor into its leasing decisions the enormous costs that greenhouse gas emissions stemming from its oil and gas program impose on public land resources and on the communities that depend on them for clean air and water."
Hallie Templeton, legal director for FOE, added that the federal government "simply cannot ignore climate, wildlife, and water impacts when analyzing the myriad risks of oil and gas leasing, whether in Wyoming or across the country," as the ruling makes clear.
"We are beyond pleased with this outcome," said Templeton.
The ruling "should be another wake up call for the Bureau of Land Management to at long last address the damage caused from federal oil and gas development," said Alexandra Schluntz, senior associate attorney for Earthjustice. "It is time to make fossil fuel leasing on our public lands a thing of the past."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Draft UN Report Finds Israel Has Met Threshold for Genocide
"Israel's genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza is an escalatory stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure."
Mar 25, 2024
The United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday published a draft report that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a move that came on the same day as the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the ongoing war.
The advance unedited version of the report—entitled Anatomy of a Genocide—concludes that Israel's far-right government and military "have intentionally distorted jus in bello principles, subverting their protective functions, in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people."
"The overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group," the draft report states, enumerating Israeli actions that violate Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: "Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to group members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
"Israel has de facto treated an entire protected group and its life-sustaining infrastructure as 'terrorist' or 'terrorist-supporting,' thus transforming everything and everyone into either a target or collateral damage, hence killable or destroyable," the paper continues. "In this way, no Palestinian in Gaza is safe by definition. This has had devastating, intentional effects, costing the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians, destroying the fabric of life in Gaza, and causing irreparable harm to its entire population."
Israel
rejected the report as "an obscene inversion of reality."
According to Palestinian and international humanitarian officials, Israel's 171-day Gaza onslaught has killed at least 32,333 Palestinians, most of them women and children, while wounding nearly 75,000 others and displacing around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people. Thousands more Palestinians are missing and believed to be dead and buried beneath the rubble of bombed buildings. Disease and deadly starvation caused and exacerbated by Israel's siege and blockade of Gaza are spreading rapidly.
"Israel's genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza is an escalatory stage of a long-standing settler-colonial process of erasure," the draft report asserts. "For over seven decades this process has suffocated the Palestinian people as a group—demographically, culturally, economically, and politically—seeking to displace it and expropriate and control its land and resources."
Referring to the flight and ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the foundation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, the paper contends that "the ongoing Nakba must be stopped and remedied once and for all. This is an imperative owed to the victims of this highly preventable tragedy, and to future generations in that land."
"The ongoing Nakba must be stopped and remedied once and for all."
The draft report urges U.N. member states to "enforce the prohibition of genocide in accordance with their... obligations" under international law. In January, the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Israel was "plausibly" perpetrating genocide in Gaza and ordered the country's government to "take all measures within its power" to prevent genocidal acts. Human rights defenders say Israel has ignored the order.
"Israel and those states that have been complicit in what can be reasonably concluded to constitute genocide must be held accountable and deliver reparations commensurate with the destruction, death, and harm inflicted on the Palestinian people," the publication argues.
The draft report recommends measures including:
- Immediate implementation of an arms embargo on Israel, as it appears to have failed to comply with the binding measures ordered by the ICJ;
- Immediate referral of the situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court in support of its ongoing investigation;
- Ensuring that Israel, as well as states who have been complicit in the Gaza genocide, acknowledge the colossal harm done, commit to nonrepetition, with measures for prevention and full reparations, including the full cost of the reconstruction of Gaza;
- Deploying an international protective presence to constrain the violence routinely used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and
- Ensuring that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is properly funded to enable it to meet the increased needs of Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel on Monday informed the U.N. that it will no longer allow UNRWA convoys carrying food aid into northern Gaza, even as the Palestinians are starving to death, a move that one humanitarian campaigner called a "death sentence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular