Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

For Immediate Release

Contact

andrew.purcell.org.uk or +44 (0) 207 553 8166

Press Release

COURT TO RULE ON WHETHER U.S. GOVERNMENT CAN KILL AN AMERICAN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

WASHINGTON -

Lawyers for US citizen Bilal Abdul Kareem have filed their response to the Government, in a case that will establish whether the U.S. can assassinate its own citizens, without telling them why or offering them their constitutional right to due process.
 
Mr Kareem alleges that he was nearly killed by US missiles on five separate occasions in 2016, while working as a journalist in Syria. In June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that he could plausibly infer that he had been placed on the ‘kill list’ – and that the Government must afford him his due process right to find out why.
 
The Government’s lawyers subsequently sought to have the case thrown out on the grounds that it would prejudice national security if state secrets were to be revealed at trial – effectively arguing that the U.S. drone programme operates beyond the reach of the Constitution, even when it targets Americans.
 
In their response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, Mr Kareem’s lawyers, Lewis Baach Middlemiss and Reprieve, write: “By invoking the state secrets privilege in the context of designating a U.S. citizen for lethal action, the government seeks to shield itself from all inquiry into the process by which it acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of plaintiff Bilal Abdul Kareem.
 
“The consequences of this action are too severe, and the right [to due process] too foundational to a constitutional democracy, to allow the government to secretly condemn an American citizen to death”.
 
Lawyers for the Government previously argued that offering Mr Kareem an opportunity to present evidence that he has been targeted for assassination would in itself constitute due process, but that the Government is under no legal obligation to respond. Mr Kareem’s lawyers write: “Due process would not be satisfied by limiting the accused to unilaterally contending that he is innocent of unknown charges in the hopes of persuading a silent, opaque coterie of government officials not to kill him.”
 
Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson, co-counsel for Mr Kareem, said: “The Government’s assertion that it has the right to mark its own citizens for death, based on secret information, without affording them the legal protections offered by the Constitution, is chilling. Denying Mr Kareem his right to meaningful due process, on the grounds of national security, would set a dangerous and terrifying precedent.”

###

Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay.

Share of Fossil Fuels in Global Energy Mix 'Has Not Moved by an Inch' in a Decade

"We are waking up to the bitter reality that the climate policy promises over the past 10 years have mostly been empty words," said the executive director of REN21, which released the new report.

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


Latest Nina Turner Ad in Ohio Highlights Working-Class Need for Medicare for All

"Wealth should never dictate whether you are able to see a doctor or live a healthy life."

Jenna McGuire, staff writer ·


Biden Admin Urged to 'Prevent a Historic Wave of Evictions' by Extending CDC Moratorium, Speeding Up Aid

"Far too many renters are struggling to access emergency rental assistance programs and are at risk of losing their homes when the moratorium expires," said the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer ·


Democrats Unveil Decriminalization Plan to End 'Mass Devastation' of Failed US Drug War

"50 years. That's how long our government has waged a war—not on drugs, but on people."

Julia Conley, staff writer ·


Norwegian 'People vs. Arctic Oil' Case Heads to European Human Rights Court

"We have to take action now to limit irreversible damage to our climate and ecosystems to ensure livelihoods for the coming generations," said one activist.

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·