Arrow-right Camera


Judge torn on lawsuit over drone casualties

Sat., July 20, 2013

Case challenges courts’ oversight

WASHINGTON – Courts cannot second-guess drone strikes that kill U.S. citizens overseas, an Obama administration lawyer argued Friday.

A Republican-appointed judge sounded dubious about the expansive claim, saying she was “really troubled” by assertions that courts are completely shut out of the drone strike debate. But for other legal reasons, the judge also sounded hesitant about a lawsuit targeted at top military and intelligence officials for violating the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens blown up in foreign lands.

“There are instances where wrongs are done, but for one reason or another they cannot be remedied in a civil suit,” U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing a family member, have sued former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other former officials over the two separate drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen. The Obama administration wants the lawsuit dismissed.

The lawsuit is the latest challenge to the administration’s secretive war-fighting practices that have mobilized skeptics on both the right and the left.

On Sept. 30, 2011, missiles fired from a remotely piloted aircraft killed U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, along with at least two other people traveling with them in Yemen. Two weeks later, another drone strike at an open-air restaurant in Yemen killed seven people, including Abdul Rahman Anwar Awlaki, the 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki.

During the 80-minute oral argument Friday before a standing-room-only crowd, Collyer sounded highly dubious about the administration’s most far-reaching claim – that judges should steer entirely clear of military and national security decision-making.

“The executive is not an effective check on the executive when it comes to constitutional rights,” Collyer told Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck. “The argument you are making is tied to an assertion of authority (in which) the court has no role. I find that a little disconcerting.”

Collyer also questioned whether one or two of the slain U.S. citizens were simply “unintended” collateral damage from strikes aimed at someone else.

More broadly, Collyer suggested Friday that it might be “a stretch” and “highly unusual” to let a lawsuit proceed that aims to find top U.S. military and national security officials personally liable for constitutional violations.


Click here to comment on this story »