WASHINGTON - A

federal court today acknowledged the serious issues raised by a lawsuit

challenging the Obama administration's targeted killing policy, but

dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal

standing to challenge the targeting of his son, and that the case raised

"political questions" not subject to court review. The Center for

Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union filed

the lawsuit in August, charging that the administration's asserted

authority to execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose

an imminent threat violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.

The judge did not rule on the merits of the case.

Despite granting the government's

motion to dismiss the case, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia called the case "unique and extraordinary,"

said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that

the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers

involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional

structure." Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural

grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the

alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas

must await another day..."

"If the court's ruling is correct,

the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted

killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a

threat to the nation," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the

ACLU. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more

inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American

liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in

the president today will be available not just in this case but in

future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future

president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to

be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other

context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use

lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful

oversight by the courts."



The ACLU and CCR were retained by

Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's

decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen

Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the

context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted

killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an

imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the

court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to

place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

Judge Bates did not decide these

issues, however, because he found that the plaintiff did not have the

right to assert his son's interests in court, and "that there are

circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a

U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political

branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political

question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature

of its conclusion."

"The court refused to hear a claim on

behalf of a U.S. citizen under threat of death by his own government

that his personal constitutional rights have been violated - exactly

what the court itself acknowledges it appears no court has ever done,"

said CCR attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. "The court's holding on the

political question doctrine is indeed 'unsettling.'"



Judge Bates asked but did not answer

the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required

when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for

electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial

scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S.

citizen overseas for death?"

The lawsuit was filed against CIA

Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President

Barack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and

Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of

CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.

Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the

National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).



In response to a related case

challenging regulations that prohibited the ACLU and CCR from bringing a

lawsuit on behalf of Nasser al-Aulaqi without first obtaining a license

from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),

the Treasury today issued significant amendments to its regulations.

Among other changes, the new regulations mean that uncompensated

attorneys will no longer be required to apply for a license in order to

represent individuals before any domestic courts or administrative

agencies.

Today's decision and other documents related to the targeted killing case are available online at:

www.ccrjustice.org/ targetedkillings and www.aclu.org/targetedkillings.



Documents related to the OFAC case are available online at: www.aclu.org/ofac