This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

The Daily Need

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on the internet. This image was taken by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, November 8, 2010. Photo: AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group

Yemen’s state news agency and American officials confirmed Friday that Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric, had been killed in an American missile strike. The killing of Awlaki, who had been a charismatic and Internet-savvy mouthpiece for Jihadists around the world, was seen as the biggest U.S. counter-terrorism success since the death of Osama bin Laden in May. “This is further proof that Al Qaeda and its affiliates will have no safe haven anywhere in the world,” President Obama said in remarks Friday.

But the killing of Awlaki, an American citizen born in New Mexico, raises grave questions about the use of lethal military force by American officials. By all accounts, Awlaki was the first American citizen deliberately targeted for killing by U.S. military officials, who accused the radical, Yemen-based cleric of playing an important operational role in several attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S., and claimed broad powers to hunt Awlaki down and kill him. Civil liberties organizations, such as the ACLU, have derided the policy as an aggressive overreach of Constitutional authority.

“We continue to believe that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in an interview Friday morning with Need to Know. “As we’ve seen today, it’s a program under which U.S. citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process and on the basis of standards and evidence that are secret.”

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in July on behalf of Awlaki’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki, challenging the government’s authority to target American citizens for killing outside clearly defined battle zones, and without an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens. The ACLU accused the government of, among other things, disregarding the Fifth Amendment, which states that no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the organization has yet to decide whether to file a new court challenge.

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake  to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war. In the past, the authority to kill American citizens has been restricted to fixed geographical boundaries of conflict and to periods in which the U.S. was at war with a clearly defined enemy.

“The authority the administration is claiming is not an authority that is limited to the battlefield. In their view, the battlefield is anywhere, therefore terrorists can be found anywhere,” Jaffer said. “That’s dangerous.”

Jaffer also sharply criticized the administration for failing to live up to the expectations many civil liberties organizations had when Obama ran for president in 2008. Obama, Jaffer said, has continued many of the aggressive counter-terrorism policies embraced by the administration of George W. Bush, including the use of surveillance and other provisions of the “Patriot Act.”

“It has certainly been surprising and disappointing to us that this administration has continued so many of the last administration’s most radical national security policies, including polices that many members of this administration criticized when they were in office,” Jaffer said.

Jaffer also expressed frustration that many Americans who would otherwise be uncomfortable with such an aggressive use of military power in the hands of Bush, for example, are assuaged by the fact that the power is somehow “safe in the hands of President Obama.” The danger in that complacency, Jaffer said, is that, with the precedent set by President Obama, the power to target Americans for killing will likely be used — and possibly abused — by future presidents.

“The administration is claiming war power all over the world, and the war power doesn’t distinguish between Americans and anyone else,” Jaffer said. “The fact that President Obama used the power today set the precedent that other presidents will invoke in the future.”

  • thumb
    The admission arms race
    From ProPublica, an in-depth look at the ways in which colleges can pump up their stats.
  • thumb
    Home-grown terrorism
    The story of the Boston bombers is still unfolding at high speed, but counterterror officials believe the brothers were Islamic extremists.
  • thumb
    Boston reading guide
    Need to play catch up? Here's a full list of resources for more on what's going on in Boston.


  • Pitviper90

    you must be off your Nut

  • Anonymous

    If a person chooses to go to war/incite violence against the citizens of The United States, then they are an enemy combatant and should expect to reap what they sow.

  • Santafe66

    The real danger is the ACLU! This bunch of self-righteous Liberals is out of control in our country and needs to reduce or eliminate their presence and influence in every state. They stick their noses into all aspects of society with only a disruptive effect. They think they know best, just like liberals in congress. We need LESS government, not more righteous lawyers looking to pad their case resumes.

    Killing that terrorist was a good thing and the ACLU needs to get their nose out of this.

  • Disappointed

    Who wd have thought that obama wd be a bigger neocon than bush?

  • Joydivision

    If one of Jaffar’s family members was held at gun point by a homicidal maniac, I bet he tell the sniper to take him out. The ACLU can go to hell

  • Equal

    Does anyone have the right to kill?

  • Logical

    Being of no affiliation, I feel I must point out that you are calling for less government while criticizing the very organization that wants “less government interference in citizens’ lives.” I think the ACLU is detrimental as well, but on the grounds that I believe in more government restriction of liberties. Think of what you are saying: “I want less government so the government should have more power to target civilians.” You see, I want more government and firmly believe that the killing of al-Awlaki was desirable. 

  • Guest

    Obama might be to the right of Bush!!$&@)(!&

  • Emmamalsam

    When Anwar al-Awalaki, denounced his “Alligiance to the Flag of the United States”, and by becoming an Enemy Combatant he lost his American Citizenship (it used to be called TREASON)!  Therefore, as an enemy who vowed to kill Americans (and did), we had every right to hunt him down.

  • Anonymous

    At least the ACLU is consistent unlike Obama

  • Deano

    When it comes to this government killing its own people we haven’t seen anything yet. Through the power that we will give a certain power we will see killings on a massive scale done by this power in our own country and it is a religious power that once ruled the world during what is known as the dard ages. They ae the ones who caused the dark ages. They killed between 50 and 150 million people based of various estimates by historians.


    ACLU: Hush up, adults are talking. You don’t know how to conduct a war, so be quiet. Thank you.