Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda
Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen last year.
July 18th, 2012
11:00 AM ET

Civil rights groups sue U.S. for killing of Americans tied to al Qaeda

By Ted Metzger, with reporting from Joe Sutton

Two civil rights groups sued the CIA director, the defense secretary and two military commanders over two covert U.S. strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen last year.

The operations killed radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, editor of a Jihadist online publication.

The two groups - the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed the lawsuit on behalf of the parents of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

It claims the strikes that killed the three men violated their constitutional rights because the targeted attacks "rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process and evidence never presented to the courts," according to the complaint filed in D.C. federal court this morning.

"It's about accountability," said Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU deputy director. "If the government is claiming the power, as it seems to be, to kill any American who is deemed to be a national security threat without judicial review of any kind, then we believe the government has an obligation to explain its actions."

But in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was a major figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Justice Department said it is justified.

He was linked to the plot of the so-called "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab and alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, and the Justice Department says there is a legal framework in place that makes going to the courts unnecessary.

"It does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a March speech. “Even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen."

The legal argument is slightly different for Khan and al-Awlaki's son, both presumed to be collateral damage in the drone strikes.

Khan was killed in September alongside Anwar al-Awlaki, whose son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, died in a separate drone strike a few weeks later, also in Yemen.

It is unclear whom the U.S. was targeting in the attack and why al-Awlaki's son was near that location.

Jaffer hopes those questions will be answered in court.

Relatives say the terror suspect’s son was not affiliated with terrorism.

"I never thought that one day this boy, this nice boy, will be killed by his own government for no wrong he did certainly," his grandfather, Nasseral-Awlaki, said in a video statement provided to CNN by the ACLU.

The Khan family's attorney advised them not to make a statement, but family friend and former family spokesman Jibril Hough said the issue isn't personal, but constitutional. "What Samir thought, felt, etc. is not the issue. The issue is the Constitution and giving the government the power to kill anyone 'at will.' " Hough said he didn't agree with Khan, but, "He he had 'rights' as an American. If we don't have those rights, then we are not much better than the regime in Syria and other rogue places."

Holder said the U.S. takes the death of innocent bystanders into account.

"Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage," Holder said in March.

The lawsuit against CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and two military officials seeks damages against the four government officials. It does not name a specific dollar amount, only saying "an amount to be determined at trial," according to the complaint.

"It's not about money," Jaffer said. "The main purpose of bringing the lawsuit is to obtain a kind of accountability that can only be obtained in a federal court."

This is the second lawsuit the ACLU has filed on behalf of Nasser al-Awlaki.

In 2010, it filed a suit in federal court trying to prevent the targeting killing of Anwar al-Awlaki after it was made public that he was on a U.S. government "kill list."

The court dismissed the case a few months later.

Filed under: AQAP • Terrorism • Yemen
soundoff (394 Responses)
  1. SoCal Law Practice Help

    Really reading your site ought to be very convenient with comments. Lots of people merely chuck down the "thank you" and also proceed. Not valuable. Arguing can be great, however i will not attention whether you don't agree unless you inform me precisely why and also backup your situation. Your view (or my very own) are pointless with out a few reasoned reasons and also (hopefully) details. SoCal Law Practice Help

    February 17, 2013 at 12:48 am | Reply
  2. Guadalupe

    Simply desire to say your arctile is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply cool and i could assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the rewarding work.

    September 11, 2012 at 1:15 am | Reply
  3. Kayla

    Dr Brian Neil Talarico and Dr David Kenneth Cochrane, have and continue to cause inreversible life threatening harm to Woman, Children, and the Vulnerable... These two Doctor's are paid by the governments to Kill people for Profit... Please Participate in any way you see fit to bring these two to justice. They both work at the North Bay, Ontario, Canada, Hospital, and Clinics,

    Kayla, Supervisor of the Registered Nurse's

    August 12, 2012 at 8:07 am | Reply
  4. Coach

    What will those "civil rights" groups do to defend the victims of Al Qaeda? NOTHING.

    July 20, 2012 at 6:38 am | Reply
  5. metsrule1

    I'm sorry, is this a joke page or are people's common sense dying? Had this man been within our borders, not constantly surrounded by heavily armed men who would gladly shoot a Red Cross person trying to administer aid to a child, and not a constantly moving target, he would be arrested. But guess what!! He was!! He openly wanted "fellow" Americans dead. And we didn't kill him soon because...

    July 19, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Reply
    • gatornuts

      The human condition is funny. Deer and rabbits get killed all the time but somehow people think that they are different. He got put down. A lot of people have been put down. It's not right or wrong, just the way it is. But I must say suing your executors seem like a joke.

      July 19, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Reply
  6. M Houston

    Sue away. Al Awlaki chose his own fate. And he got what he deserved.

    July 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Reply
  7. Dan Slaby

    A fundamental problem exists with western judicial system – that is a person can be apprehended for committing a crime but not before. This approach exists to provide protections of a person's civil rights, freedom of speech and religion, and the abuse of police power. At what point does planning to commit a crime sufficient cause to interdict and arrest the perpetuator, and how do we prevent the abuse of power for political purposes? Can there be a civil committment based on criminal intent? What would be the rules of evidence? The issue of the right-wing running helter-skelter with over 1000 armed militia hate groups and the intimidation by the NRA to prevent background checks on purchasing guns including those who are on the FBI terrorism watch list are part of the political problem. If persons are known to harbor intent to kill, then there needs to be some reasonable restrictions on the person requiring monitoring to prevent acting out intent. Modern democracies need to balance the need for security with the rights of people to live their lives with freedom.

    July 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • AMY

      the key word here is "reasonable", you know as well as I do, you give an inch and they will take a country mile. If we could all have "reasonable" that would be great.

      July 19, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Reply
  8. Frank Loftice

    A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a terrorist of any nationality is still a terrorist and should be delt with accordingly, utilizing any means at our disposal, be it drones, snipers, bombs or killer raids. The only good rerrorist is a dead one and having been a Marine sniper I am happy to report that I personally arranged the meeting of them and their maker to many of them.

    July 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • AMY

      you are right and I thank you for your service.

      July 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
    • Sphincter

      After Amy finishes fellating you, perhaps she can feltch my seed from your heroic rectum.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Reply
  9. PaulBel

    If you have a chance to take out an enemy combatant (And I don't just mean someone holding a gone – intelligence, propagandists and saboteurs are also fair game) you take them out. I don't think citizenship extends to someone who is working for the known enemies of our country. While it would be great to drag these soldiers (that's what they are since they are fighting for the overthrow of this country) into a courtroom, if they are on the battle field and get in the way of incoming, that was their choice when they hooked up with these terrorists. While the ACLU has done some very good work on behalf of the American people, this, in my opinion, is not their within their domain. An enemy combatant is fair game regardless of citizenship.

    July 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Reply
  10. MEK

    are you kidding me??? when they became a terrorist, they gave up any rights...that's why they are hiding in Yemen!!! ACLU – i think you need to butt out of this one and leave it alone. what about the 9/11 victims and the pentagon victims...who can we sue? Al qaeda??? omg – this makes me soooo mad!

    July 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • Sphincter

      Wanna sue someone for 9/11? Start with Washington.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Reply
  11. AMY

    I just want to know, is the ACLU going to support us when the UN and Obama admin tries to take away our 2nd amendment rights?? I would like to know where they stand on that. Will they sue the government saying our rights are being denied??

    July 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
    • bpuharic

      Oh brother...Obama taking away our 2nd amendment rights. I'm 57 and remember this 'treaty' being screamed about 40 years ago. You pathetic right wingers are sheep, and are easily stampeded by any manipulating politician. God you're DUMB

      July 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Reply
      • Hater Nation

        6 months from now, no one will recall what happened here.

        July 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • AMY

        oh brother indeed. Have you not been reading or listening?? It has been reported that the UN and US government is in negotiations for an arms tready that would affect our 2nd admendment rights, why don't you read before you start calling people dumb and stupid??

        July 19, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Tamara

      Jeanne Posted on I think it is rather cute as is.But if you want to add a face I think the bttoom protuberance as Marge put it would work better as a tail. I would suggest using that as the backside and the opposite side (the one facing away from the camera in the second picture) as the face. Maybe you could embroider some closed eyes with eyelashes? or something like: (^ ^)I wouldn't add too much detail because the simplistic suggestive details are what make it cute. That and it is much more fun to guess at what it is than to be told outright. ;DThe more I look at it, the more I want one. Ha ha. Definitely post your etsy site when you get it running!

      September 10, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  12. VVVV

    The ACLU is not saying they have to have a judge, jury and be present. They are just suing so attention is brought to what kind of procedure our government should go through before they can execute a citizen beyond reach. This is a good thing.

    July 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
    • bpuharic

      Nonsense. This is not an execution. It's war. There's a difference. Al Alwaki is NOT accused of illegal parking

      July 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  13. VVVV

    I agree on this. A government shouldn't be allowed to execute an American without some legal process.

    July 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Reply
    • bpuharic

      They didn't execute him. The killed him using rules of engagement during war.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Reply
    • YoungMarine

      He's a terrorist he has no rights

      July 21, 2012 at 3:19 am | Reply
  14. solex

    One more time child think types (White Hat/Black Hat)

    The ACLU has only one mission: They defend the bill of rights. They have NO political agenda and they do not care who it is that s being denied due process.

    They will just as soon sue for the rights of Nazi Skinheads to parade their hatred down a public street just as fast as they will sue for the right of ALL Americans to have things like due process and freedom of religion – not just white, conservative christians.

    They beleive that the law should apply equally to ANY American, even Muslims.

    The ACLUS knows the difference betweeb Strength and Might – I wish everyone else would too...

    July 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Reply
    • bpuharic

      Even defending a war criminal in a failed state beyond the reach of law? That's not defending the Bill of Rights, that's fanaticism. And it's wrong

      July 19, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Reply
      • VVVV

        Based on less evidence than they had for WMD?

        July 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
      • bpuharic

        What proof do you need? He made videos for a terrorist group. And, AGAIN, how do you issue an arrest warrant to a subject hiding in a failed state? Any reason you fanatics keep dodging the issue?

        July 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • solex

      The last I checked, we were not at war. Only congress can declare war and that means that this is a criminal matter.

      The only thing they are suing about is the lack of due process – and let's face it – murder is about as no due process as it gets.

      They don't care about the partculars of any crime or behavior – they just hold to the letter of the law – something I used to think conservatives were all about – until it stopped serving their purpose.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Reply
      • bpuharic

        Gee. What happened in Afghanistan? That was a war, wasn't it? And Congress voted for it. And Bush let Bin Laden go. We could have had him in November of 2001 but Bush said no.

        July 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Gunner

        Solex, The ACLU is constantly getting involved in issues that really they shouldn't. This is a war...period, end of story. Any citizen who renounces citizenship, commits treason absolutely is, participates in war against it's nation is guilty and subject to the death penalty. The ACLU has gone to great lengths to take the pledge of allegiance out of schools, stop morning moments of silent prayers, fight to allow other traditional and American culural observances to be trampled on for the sake of a few who don't like it. The ACLU is a complete joke and worthless. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is not politcally motivated (extreme liberal) needs do their homework.

        July 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  15. AmericanBubba

    ACLU ......... FAR Q! It's a WAR on terrorism.... and if you are going to be involved with the wrong side.... expect the results you are dealt. What about the WTC and 9-11? Concern yourself with the fact that THEIR liberties were taken from them.

    July 19, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • Hater Nation

      Switzerland was invaded by the Celts, the Romans, the Franks and the Germans. Each time they were slaughtered for their possessions and differing beliefs. My family came to America in the 1700's to escape being executed for not praying in the same manner as the occupying people. The world is not so different today. I hate the ACLU. I think they are a bunch of spineless twits. But, the ACLU is attempting to end the world of hatred, to stop idealogical killings. I doubt there will ever be piece on earth, so continue killing in the name of revenge, oil, and because you're better and more deserving of God's gifts than the next person. We hold the high ground.

      July 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
  16. Badly-Bent

    Guess I won't be supporting them anymore.

    July 19, 2012 at 11:41 am | Reply
  17. Road

    ACLU is a joke i needed their help but they wouldn't help me.i am black,mexican,.female or gay so they won't help me or any other white male thats not rich..

    July 19, 2012 at 11:09 am | Reply
    • AlaDave

      Just wondering ... The ACLU loves First Amendment cases – how many Second Amendment cases have they taken over their history?

      July 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Reply
      • bpuharic

        Perhaps because to sane people the 2nd is not a human right; it's a bizarre obsolete view of technology

        July 19, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Pnm9pnm

      Go to Omaha gay thare can help thay gust got there rights to work gust stay away from the mass ups.pnm.

      July 19, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
  18. hubrisdenied

    -insert useless rant here-

    July 19, 2012 at 10:57 am | Reply
  19. Jason

    Eric Holder is like Janet Reno they both love killing americans.

    July 19, 2012 at 10:55 am | Reply

      Yes, and I, TOO, love killing Americans (or anyone else) who cowardly plan mass killings of civilians. These 3 were out of our justice system's reach. The ACLU can SHOVE their political correctness.

      July 19, 2012 at 11:49 am | Reply
  20. Dave404

    Perhaps the ACLU should file sue on behalf Confederate soldiers kill in the Civil War. After all they were American citizens. What right did the government have to take action against them?

    This guy is where he belongs, dead.

    July 19, 2012 at 10:39 am | Reply
  21. Bob

    The ACLU defends terrorists and racists but won't defend the 2ns amendment. They cherry pick the rights they agree with and ignore the rest.

    July 19, 2012 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • frontgate

      The 2nd amendment? You're crazy, right?

      July 19, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
    • Loren

      Sorry, Bob, but with limited resources, the ACLU has to pick and choose which issues it wants to address. While I disagree with the legal basis of the claim, the Americans involved were either enemy combatants or in a war zone and so assumed the risk, I also don't think that comparing the claim to defending the 2d Amendment is appropriate. After all, the 2d Amendment essentially protects our right to kill one another, while the ACLU is challenging the government's actions in trying to kill us citizens.

      July 19, 2012 at 10:57 am | Reply
      • ArchieDeBunker

        Sorry Loren,

        But the ACLU only supports causes that are a) radical, b) socialist c) anti-American. Why would you be foolish enough to join such an organization?

        July 19, 2012 at 11:52 am |
  22. Pnm9pnm

    Take his arm with his shoe in his hand end hit him in his head n throwe him to bin LoddEN.((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((PNM.

    July 19, 2012 at 9:30 am | Reply
  23. Sue

    Does the ACLU get tax payor funding ?? I think we should have a say in what cases they take. How about defending more appropriate cases that are affecting Americans ? It is called the American Civil Lib Union not Al Qaeda Civil Lib Union.

    July 19, 2012 at 8:56 am | Reply
    • frontgate

      You are another crazy, am I right?
      boy-oh-boy, where do these nut jobs come from?
      Oh yeah, I know. Their idol- Rumball, the fat one, Oxycontin Rush.

      July 19, 2012 at 10:55 am | Reply
      • tjp44

        you area traitor idiot just like the ACLU........death to you as well

        July 19, 2012 at 11:20 am |
  24. jim

    If he was such an evil terrorist why not go through the legal process instead of resorting to summary execution? I mean come on, they targeted an American citizen and bombed his family to death. Very very slippery slope.

    July 19, 2012 at 8:36 am | Reply
    • Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

      That American citizen targeted Americans including your own family. When al Qaeda attacks, they do so indiscriminately and they don't care who they kill! Furthermore, this guy said openlyy that ke was plotting to kill Americans. let me guess, you're a republican!!!

      July 19, 2012 at 8:40 am | Reply
      • really

        Agreed, what need do we have for trials or evidence or court review? If the emperor... I mean president says someone is a bad guy, we should be able to kill them.

        July 19, 2012 at 8:44 am |
      • bigot

        "Agreed, what need do we have for trials or evidence or court review? If the emperor... I mean president says someone is a bad guy, we should be able to kill them"

        this is nothing has been going on for many years, in both parties.

        July 19, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • bpuharic

      And what police force would you send it? This is pure delusion. Before 9/11, Al Qaida had a joke "What will the Americans do if we bomb a city? Sue us in court". If you'd been in NY after 9/11 you'd know this wasn't a bank robbery or parking in front of a fire hydrant. I'm a supporter of the ACLU but this is pure coddling of terrorists

      July 19, 2012 at 8:45 am | Reply
      • really

        I don't have a problem with killing the bad guys, but giving the executive branch the power, without any check or review is insane. We have a Bill of Rights for a reason.

        July 19, 2012 at 8:51 am |
      • bpuharic

        War overseas in a failed state is not subject to the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where you get your view of law, but there's no provision that says it applies to the entire world.

        July 19, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • frank

      lie with dogs, get up with drones. these killers were not killed in dearborn, they were in Yemen plotting to kill americans. wrong place and time for the ACLU to intervene. not an issue of free speech or right to congregate but the right to incite he killing of me and mine. ACLU needs to choose its cases more carefully if they want to remain relevant.

      July 19, 2012 at 9:50 am | Reply
    • frontgate

      He lives in the mountains and caves of Pakistan. Who'd serve the warrant? You?

      July 19, 2012 at 10:56 am | Reply
    • tjp44

      dear fool, protect them and die by us

      July 19, 2012 at 11:22 am | Reply
    • History Bear

      A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and regardless of nationality deserves just what he/she gets. This notion of so called rights of enemy combatants is pure garbage invented by weak willed cowards and enemies of the west to undermine us.

      July 19, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
  25. really

    I don't understand why killing American citizens without warrant, trial, court review or any presentation of evidence is a problem. If the president says someone is a terrorist it should be OK to kill them. There is no chance of a mistake or abuse of power..... Sarcasm

    July 19, 2012 at 8:31 am | Reply
    • frank

      "americans" fighting on the side of the enemy are enemies and can and should be expected to be fired upon. these "americans" were planning on killing me and my neighbors [not sarcasm]. good riddance.

      July 19, 2012 at 9:52 am | Reply
    • Vietnam Vet

      You must be pretty stupid. The Geneva conventions permits the killing of enemy combatants, anywhere, anytime.

      July 19, 2012 at 10:22 am | Reply
  26. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    Let me guess! The GOP were behind this suit. Following the announcement that our Navy SEAL's had killed OBL, some conservatives accused the Obama administration of violating the sovereignty of Pakistan. Likewise, following the announcement that Awalaki had been droned, conservatives accused the President of killing an American. And they did the same during the Libyan crisis, accusing the Obama administration of waging an illegitimate war. That is the same people who supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yea, keep voting for republicans and see how far your ignorance, prejudice and stupidy get you.

    July 19, 2012 at 8:00 am | Reply
    • really

      Gosh, secretly sending troops into a sovereign nation for military operations is a violation? How would you feel about a chopper full of Mexican commandos attacking a drug cartel hideout in Texas, without notifying us?

      July 19, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
      • Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

        Operation Geronomo was not a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty simply because we had already gotten approval from Pakistan to use its land and air space to complete the war on terror in Afghanistan and going after OBL was part of that war campaign. And if the Mexican government were to send helicopters into Texas to go after a drug cartel without notifying us, that won't be a violation of our sovereignty because Texas is Mexico.

        July 19, 2012 at 8:59 am |
      • really

        Ummm, if anything you said there were accurate, you would be correct.

        July 19, 2012 at 9:21 am |
      • frank

        "us"? dearborn is not in texas and your islamic center bulletin board material is not relevant.

        July 19, 2012 at 9:54 am |
      • tjp44

        don't be stupid, it would be shot down before it crossed the if we sent it, God Speed

        July 19, 2012 at 11:25 am |
      • History Bear

        Since our own law enforcement is hampered by morons and their ilk, pretty good. Killing terrorist, drug dealers, serial rapist and child molesters sounds just fine to me. I'm tired of this garbage of worring about their "rights" to the determinent of law abiding citizens. You do the crime, you pay the penalty PERIOD!

        July 19, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Bob

      The idea that the GOP could get any support from the ACLU is cracked. Cat's and dogs.

      July 19, 2012 at 10:36 am | Reply
  27. It's Me

    ACL who? What a bunch of idiot sympathizers. Try suing the morons who are killing, and wanting to kill, Americans.

    July 19, 2012 at 7:46 am | Reply
  28. BigAl

    REALLY?!?!? this is what the ACLU spends their time on? geez

    July 19, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply
  29. BG

    I want to sue alQaeda for killing innocent civilians

    July 19, 2012 at 7:26 am | Reply
  30. Jonnie

    If the individual is seen as a threat to national security and significant proof is shown to back that up...light em up. Who cares if they are American. We shouldn't get a 'get out of jail free card'. Doesn't matter if its a Yemen terrorist of an American terrorist; get rid of the problem.

    July 19, 2012 at 7:17 am | Reply
  31. jiri pinkas

    LOL good luck with that lawsuit. More Muslim stupidity!

    July 19, 2012 at 4:38 am | Reply
  32. Lars

    We were terrorists pre-1776 but they had muskets, not drones. Quash the rebellion at all costs right?

    July 19, 2012 at 2:45 am | Reply
    • Saywhat?

      you're an id10t, right? yep, you are

      July 19, 2012 at 7:08 am | Reply
    • CM

      No, "we" were not terrorists prior 1776...we did not target innocent civilians and attempt to change British policy through terror and fear.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:13 am | Reply
      • really

        In the Boston Tea Party, we attacked a civilian target for just such reasons.

        July 19, 2012 at 8:27 am |
      • Yes Really


        Big difference between throwing crates of commercial commodity into the bay and detonating yourself with the intent of killing as many people, civilian or not, as possible.

        July 19, 2012 at 9:22 am |
      • Catalina

        Amanda L. Posted on The last photo of the orange thing, makes me think of a gofdsilh. I agree, if you add eyes, it could be a fun little monster-type thing. Peple would buy it.

        September 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Kevin

      You obviously do not know what a terrorist is.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:29 am | Reply
    • KSquared

      The strong survive, the weak don't. Natural selection working according to the plan.

      July 19, 2012 at 9:20 am | Reply
    • Montre

      Wow! Quite possibly the most moronic comment on the internet today!

      July 19, 2012 at 10:02 am | Reply
    • tjp44

      Lars, you liberal freak, you are a traitor now.....

      July 19, 2012 at 11:27 am | Reply
    • History Bear

      Another left wing , under educated idiot heard from. Other than some minor bruises no one was killed, it was a political and commercial protest against the taxes imposed by the British government to pay for their supposed protection of their north american colonies, which cost the colonist a great many deaths. etc. No human bombers, not night attacks agains women and childern, no attempts hurt others just because they wanted to be big tough guys. Get a grip uneducated moron.

      July 19, 2012 at 11:40 am | Reply
  33. Jason

    This is a very tricky situation that should raise some serious questions:
    1.) Should the president be able to order the execution of a US citizen without a trial?
    2.) Why does the ACLU choose the battles that they do?

    I don't have the answers, but at least I'm raising the questions that every American should be asking.

    July 19, 2012 at 2:37 am | Reply
    • cheese

      A more pertinent question is

      1) Are those who openly proclaim allegiance to enemies of their own nation and attempt to murder their own citizens still counted as US citizens? Or did they forfeit their right to citizenship?

      July 19, 2012 at 7:32 am | Reply
      • CM

        But al-Alawki didn't kill anyone; meanwhile mass-murderers only get life here in the US. I just think this sets a bad precedent that our government can kill US citizens at will, regardless of what they have done.

        July 19, 2012 at 7:38 am |
  34. Get Real

    Who will they protect next the President of Penn St?

    July 19, 2012 at 2:35 am | Reply
  35. danielmeah

    What you need to remember (And you probably know this) is that the Al-QUeada is a US invention. they where used to fight soviets.

    July 19, 2012 at 2:25 am | Reply
    • jim

      I think you mean the Taliban..........just sayin

      July 19, 2012 at 7:17 am | Reply
    • CM

      No al-Qa'ida came into being after the Soviets left Afghanistan...the predecessor was MAK and they were mostly a fundraising organization in which UBL played a minor role. We funded the would be more accurate to say we funded the Haqanni Network.

      July 19, 2012 at 7:19 am | Reply
      • jim

        Are the Haqanni Taliban or Al-Queda aligned ???

        July 19, 2012 at 7:30 am |
      • CM

        By that logic you might as well say we armed North Korea in 1950, because we aided the Soviets in WWII...the point still stands...we did NOT start al-Qa'ida

        July 19, 2012 at 7:57 am |
      • jim

        At 2:25 am you said we DID "invent" AQ !!!???

        July 19, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • tjp44

      put the meth pipe away and go to sleep traitor

      July 19, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply
  36. Gravy


    July 19, 2012 at 2:24 am | Reply
  37. Paul

    I am ok with this legal action. 1, the USA can not have a "closed executive process without evidence presented" to a court. 2. The court is the final statement on if the executive action was constutional not the attorney general. 3. A judical review of killing americans by martial law should be automatic since Nixon did it. This is simple check and balance to expose overreach and corruption on small scale and murder on the largest scale.

    July 19, 2012 at 2:23 am | Reply
  38. dotheflippinmath

    Democrat here, and I totally agree that we need to take out terrorists, especially those who are traitors, and who might have valuable information about our infrastructure that terrorists could exploit. The one guy on the list, no question. The deader, the better. The kid and his dad were apparently in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree with the Persian (Iranian) fellow who had no doubt if they were there near a target, they were there with bad intentions. It could have been an unfortunate mistake, and coincidence that they were American citizens. We pay-off all the families who suffer accidental casualties. Our government cannot battle terrorists in a public court. By all means, do an inquiry into the two unintentional deaths, and if they were innocent, an apology from the President and a tidy settlement are in order. The ACLU is just doing their job. They protect anyone whose civil rights are abused, even Klu Klux Klan wizards! I don't agree with them on principle on this one, as I think any expectation of public trial or forewarning before striking a terrorist is both naive and ridiculous. But, again, they are people of principle, and if it were your son killed by one of our drones, while visiting a foreign country, you'd want some honest answers. Whatever the truth is, I'd like to know, myself. Obama is doing a damn good job against terrorists. Come on, for Pete's sake! He got Bin Laden, our enemy #1 (except to GWB and Cheney who couldn't find him, lol), and countless terrorist leaders. He has a lot better sense about when to fight and when not to fight than GWB. His twin Viet Nam's are what broke our country's budget, and the deregulation and encouragement of corporations outsourcing destroyed middle class jobs, while he showered the rich corporations, esp. CEO's and investors, with huge tax breaks on their windfall earnings at our expense. Then he financed two of the most expensive wars in our history on bad credit. Then his Saudi "friends" raised our gas prices..

    July 19, 2012 at 2:06 am | Reply
    • Jason

      Before you emphatically pat Obama on the back, remember that he refused to acknowledge the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism. He instead called the shooting "workplace violence". Furthermore, there were many signs that indicated that the shooter was a potential threat, and nothing was done.
      Also, both the Times Square bomber and the "underpants" bomber were foiled by nothing more than dumb luck. There were no policies that stopped the incidents from turning into tragedies, and maybe next time we won't be so lucky.

      July 19, 2012 at 2:43 am | Reply
    • jim

      Well done sir!

      July 19, 2012 at 7:22 am | Reply
    • BOBtheCaT

      We would have had BinLaden early on except some Dem congressman leaked we tracked him on his satellite phone!!!

      July 19, 2012 at 7:39 am | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.