They Knew the Evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki Was Weak When They Killed Him

In case you don’t want to read these two long posts, I want to point to two passages from the white paper that show, on two key points, the government wasn’t even claiming Anwar al-Awlaki was the “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces” they keep saying he was when they killed him.

First, on the issue of whether someone is an imminent threat or not, the white paper says a person is an imminent threat if he has “recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat against the US” and has not renounced those activities.

Moreover, where the al-Qa’ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member’s involvement in al-Qa’ida’s continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the member is an imminent threat.

And this part of the definition requires only that the target be an al Qaeda member, not a “senior operational leader.”

And then, when examining whether killing an American overseas counts as murder, the white paper says the President can order the murder of an al Qaeda member who poses an imminent threat to the US.

Similarly, under the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense recognized in international law, the President may authorize the use of force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa’ida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

Again, the American need only be a member, not a senior operational leader.

These are, to be sure, two short passages in a much longer memo. But consider how they work with the 3-part criteria laid out in the memo, which requires only that 1) John Brennan determines that someone is an imminent threat,  2) John Brennan determines that capture is not feasible, and 3) that the killing be consistent with applicable law of war principles.

Once you get to that “imminence” designation, you can kill the American, based on John Brennan’s say so. And “imminence,” for these purposes, can be as weak as past involvement (not leadership — and remember they once said that actions that lead to actions that pose a threat can get you killed, too) in activities that pose an imminent threat of violent attack on the US, so long as you haven’t formally renounced those activities.

This, I strongly suspect, is why Ron Wyden keeps asking “Does the President have to provide individual Americans with an opportunity to surrender before using lethal force against them?” Because as the white paper stands, being uninvolved with any attack for at least a year and perhaps as long as 20 months — which may well be the case with Awlaki — doesn’t count as renunciation.

I have suggested this language may have gotten introduced in a second memo, not long before they killed Awlaki in September 2011, at a point when all the evidence against him was very stale and had gotten weaker over time (the government moved to protect something under CIPA in the UndieBomber case just a week before Awlaki was killed, though that could have been the first memo).

Whether that’s what happened, though, it seems highly unlikely the language would be in the white paper if it weren’t in some document somewhere authorizing Awlaki’s killing.

Which seems to suggest they couldn’t prove — even if they once had been able to — that Awlaki was the senior operational leader they have insisted him to be. And so they wrote the memo to authorize the killing anyway.

Tweet about this on Twitter47Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook11Google+2Email to someone

17 Responses to They Knew the Evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki Was Weak When They Killed Him

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel RT @RonWyden: Working with @MarkUdall to strengthen surveillance reform & end backdoor search loophole #EndThisDragnet http://t.co/Wdg0Ja1k
47sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBankston Doesn't it have to get by Mikulski (D-NSA) in any case? @NadiaKayyali @astepanovich
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I think @jamesrbuk has just invented the Super Injunction Canary. Or perhaps Stork.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Huge loss, so sad: "Sierra Leone's top Ebola doctor dies from virus" http://t.co/hUh5TNISVt via @reuters
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBankston Lose Verizon willingness to go along with the bill. They're the make or break provider, it seems to me. @Krhawkins5
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @MikeScarcella: Judge permits DOJ to file secret declarations in FOIA suit over the govt's investigation of @wikileaks supporters: https…
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JimWhiteGNV I actually thought his graduation speech there was pretty good.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @robertcaruso Guess that explains why Commander McWherter had to go recently.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBankston Seriously, they'd lose VZ and w/o VZ you don't have a dragnet. @Krhawkins5
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade And so you ate a head-sized donut to prepare to see her again?
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBankston Or maybe the IC is happy accessing address books as a connection. ;p (And also knows they'd lose VZ) @Krhawkins5
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade LOL. Now you're gonna pass out in 3...2... ZZZZzzzzzz
19mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728