600 Days after Assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Administration Admits Doing So

/14 Comments/in /by

In this letter boasting of “unprecedented transparency,” Eric Holder officially tells Congress that since 2009 the government has killed 4 Americans: Anwar al-Awlaki was specifically targeted and killed, and Samir Khan, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Jude Mohammed were “not specifically targeted.”

One paragraph of the letter details how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told US officials of Awlaki’s involvement in the UndieBomb plot.

Too bad that in two of three confessions, Abdulmutallab said someone besides Awlaki did the things Holder lists here. Too bad that Abdulmutallab’s lawyer now says the solitary confinement associated with the interrogations in which he did implicate Awlaki made him incompetent.

14 replies
  1. sihlkee says:

    Putting Awlaki on a Murder List was “just.” Assassination is justice to this administration.

    And they didn’t mention the justness of killing the other 3 Americans. If the American murders can be extrapolated, then they murder 3 civilians for every criminal suspect (civilian) they target for assassination. That’s not a good record.

  2. beowulf says:

    “One paragraph of the letter details how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told US officials of Awlaki’s involvement in the UndieBomb plot.”

    So uncorroborated accomplice statements (that’s neither subject to cross-examination nor heard by a jury)is sufficient evidence to extrajudicially execute a US citizen. I’m glad the Attorney General cleared that up for us.

  4. Ben Franklin says:

    Holee cow. I’m glad Holder defined ‘transparency’ for Obama and all us little people. It’s so easy to see now.

    Gawd save us from soulless bureaucrats.

  7. Snoopdido says:

    “Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces outside areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

    In picking apart the very careful legalese, one comes up with:

    1. Nothing about anything prior to 2009. It’s as if the entire universe only came into existence beginning in 2009.
    2. No definition of what exactly the US considers “outside areas of active hostilities”.
    3. Nothing about any US citizen killed inside “areas of active hostilities” whether targeted or not targeted.
    4. Nothing about any US citizen wounded, but not killed at any time in any area.

  8. Jessica says:

    And there’s no recourse for the Americans killed that were ‘not specifically targeted?’ Oops? Damn, it’s good to be a government official.

  11. harpie says:

    The use of armed drones must comply with laws; interview with ICRC President Peter Maurer; 5/10/13

    The use of drones in armed conflicts has increased significantly in recent years, raising humanitarian, legal and other concerns. Peter Maurer, the president of the ICRC, discusses the issues at stake and the importance of respecting international law.[…]

  12. harpie says:

    Written testimony [pdf] of Rosa Parks at the Senate hearings of a Judiciary sub-committee

    […] But if drones used in traditional armed conflicts or traditional self-defense situations present no “new” legal issues, some of the activities and policies enabled and facilitated by drone technologies pose significant challenges to existing legal frameworks.

    As I have discussed above, the availability of perceived low cost of drone technologies makes it far easier for the US to “expand the battlefield,” striking targets in places where it would be too dangerous or too politically controversial to send troops. Specifically, drone technologies enable the United States to strike targets deep inside foreign states, and do so quickly, efficiently and deniably. As a result, drones have become the tool of choice for so-called “targeted killing” – the deliberate targeting of an individual or group of individuals, whether known by name or targeted based on patterns of activity, inside the borders of a foreign country. It is when drones are used in targeted killings outside of traditional or “hot” battlefields that their use challenges existing legal frameworks. […] [p.8][italics in original]

  13. Bill Michtom says:

    @Snoopdido: The biggest problem is what EXACTLY does “not specifically targeted” mean?

    They’re still dead but Holder is unwilling to take ANY responsibility for killing them.

Comments are closed.