Why Was CIA Assessing Whether They Could Drone-Kill Anwar al-Awlaki?

For years, defenders of the drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki have always pointed to the second confession Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab made, implicating Awlaki in each and every part of his plot.

There were always problems with that. Several pieces of evidence indicate the drone attack on December 24, 2009 that missed Awalaki had specifically targeted him; at that point, the government did not consider Awlaki operational. Abdulmutallab made 3 confessions, and only the one made to the High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) after a month of isolation and in the context of a (I’ve heard second-hand, unbelievably generous) plea deal that was never finalized implicated Awlaki in planning his attack. Claims Awlaki helped Abdulmutallab make his martyrdom video don’t explain why AQAP’s best English language propagandist would make a video with a man schooled in English in Arabic. Subsequent evidence suggests actions attributed to Awlaki in that confession were probably taken by Fahd al-Quso and Nasir al-Wuhayshi.

In other words, there are a lot of holes in the confession always used to justify Awlaki’s drone killing. Abdulmutallab’s second confession should be treated the same as his first and third ones: a narrative crafted by someone who has a big incentive to shade the truth, and therefore of dubious reliability.

The release of yesterday’s ridiculously cursory OLC memo authorizing the drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki introduces one more reason to doubt the narrative that claims Abdulmutallab’s second confession provided justification for Awlaki’s killing.

CIA Assesses

 

The memo relies not on what FBI has told OLC. It relies on CIA’s assessment that Awlaki is “a senior leader of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula” based on “factual predicates as represented by the CIA and in the materials provided to use from the Intelligence Community.”Abdulmutallab’s second confession might be included in those materials provided from the IC. Even though the confession was obtained as part of a criminal investigation, the FBI is part of the IC, so broadly speaking that second confession would qualify, I guess.

But the assessment came not from FBI, which had the lead investigating the Undiebomb attack, but from the CIA. Which ought to give you pause, given that just months before this memo was written, the intelligence community’s partners had convinced the US that they hadn’t killed a Bedouin clan in the al-Majala strike. Indeed, the intelligence relating to Awlaki seemed to be consistently stinky until such time as the CIA set up its own drone base in Saudi Arabia in mid-2011.

Besides, what are we executing American citizens based on the CIA’s assessment for anyway?

At least according to David Barron, the case against Awlaki came not from FBI, but from CIA. That doesn’t mean CIA didn’t have evidence supporting its claims (and remember, CIA has a role in HIG, as does JSOC). But it does suggest Abdulmutallab’s second confession may not have the role the defenders of Awlaki’s execution like to cling to.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

4 Responses to Why Was CIA Assessing Whether They Could Drone-Kill Anwar al-Awlaki?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @robertcaruso Nothing is sacred anymore
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Apparently @CNN thinks Donald Trump is a missing plane. Putting Steve King on to buck up Trump's racism is just sick https://t.co/d2QUJOPTDK
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bsdtectr @B_Ribs @mtaibbi It would really round things out, wouldn't it?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @JoshMalina: I respect Donald Trump for gradually cutting all ties to business as he pursues the Presidency.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @AllThingsHLS You are on a roll tonight crime dog.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EdgeofSports No, don't think so. Also not sure I would trade the Russell and Randle future for Cousins either.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Gia_Vang @findmikeandtina Thank you for the report! And I knew it was their wording+that drives me nuts because they're being disingenuous.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz This would explain so much.... https://t.co/k4ZCLMZPsf
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Gia_Vang @ERIC_WATSON @findmikeandtina Now, maybe said person is not in legal custody, but is still being questioned.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Gia_Vang @ERIC_WATSON @findmikeandtina You said custody If person is in legal custody then hes been arrested. Irrespective of what cops say
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Gia_Vang @ERIC_WATSON @findmikeandtina Um, if there is a person in custody, then there has been an arrest, no?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @JT__Orlando Kudos to Carrasco for the huge smile.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
August 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31