RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Hosenball reports: "There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate."

US Drone. (photo: USAF)
US Drone. (photo: USAF)

Secret Panel Can Put Americans on 'Kill List'

By Mark Hosenball, Reuters

06 October 11


merican militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a US-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

Lawyers Consulted

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

'From Inspirational to Operational'

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

"Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound US airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to US investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the US target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a US-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

US officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by US forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+26 # Erdajean 2011-10-06 20:56
Oh, come now, Mr. Obama -- if your heart is really into ridding the world of American citizens who are a curse upon America, why have you not "droned" the Koch Brothers? Do you need a mailing address? Why are Glen Beck and Grover Norquist still holding forth? Why is Ann Coulter still rattling her bones and spewing insanity? Why is Dick Cheney still posing and snarling? Come, now -- is not taking out a guy with a swarthy name and a turban a little racist -- or something? Surely there are plenty of worthy targets for your barn load of drones -- and illegal hatchet jobs
-2 # Martintfre 2011-10-07 08:07
Nice stream of hate, Why not "Drone" Soros?

The only destruction any one has the right to is their own.
+17 # Archie1954 2011-10-06 21:58
This is tyranny at work!
0 # giraffee2012 2011-10-07 00:06
Lately there have been some articles that are not 100% true. There is no "proof" of what is alleged in this article.

Don't forget Carl Rove is at work again. He has a $350M (Million) superpack behind him and that amount is growing to smear the Democrat who is running. We saw this in 2000 against McCain, in 2004 against John Kerry --- and he announced his involvement in the 2012 election.
+6 # Richard1908 2011-10-07 00:19
Perhaps those in charge of the USA should just put all the elderly, sick, poor, unemployed people on the list and then continue to run the country without all the complaints.
+11 # Alexis Fecteau 2011-10-07 00:20
Let's see, Koch Brothers providing billions in trade to Iran, material support to a regime known to support terrorism, same for Cheney/Halliburton.

Where are the drone strikes? The entire cabal of war criminals - where are the strikes, or better yet, the trials?

I guess Obama is now one of them, not just shielding war criminals, adopting their every tactic. Nice.
+10 # hjsteed 2011-10-07 03:42
Are impeachment hearings for high crimes in order?
+13 # 2011-10-07 06:06
Awlaki was probably a criminal terrorist but assinating him without benefit of a trial or even an indictment creates a precedent that is a threat to civil liberties and also, inadvertantly, gives support to other terrorists.

Had we put Awlaki on public trial, even if it would have had to be done in absentia, would have allowed both the American people and his terrorist allies to see that Awlaki was indeed guilty of initiating violence against innocents in addition to being sexually perverted. The facts are well enough documented so that such a trial would have reduced his stature in the jihadist community and increased American support for revoking his citizenship and pursuing him as the criminal he had been adjudicated to be.

As it stands today, jihadists still have his messages on tape and video and will likely revere him as a martyr. And many Americans do still have doubts about his role in various attempted acts of violence.

When an American President can authorize the murder of an American citizen without a trial, simply on the basis of the President disapproving of the ideas of the victim, we are in real trouble as a nation -- we have lost "the rule of law" and are descending into authoritarian dictatorship.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
-11 # Urbancurmudgeon 2011-10-07 07:03
For those too limited to understand like Erdajean & Archie 1954 the problem is really simple. Awlaki tried and convicted himself, through his widely broadcast speeches. he loudly declared that his followers should kill Americans and seek to destroy America. This, no matter how you slice it, is treason. The penalty for treason is death. Sometimes we need trials to decide guilt. Sometimes it is so obvious that not to convict is to condone treason. Whether it is this panel that Hosenball discusses or whether it is the president, either would be derelict in their duty not to execute. The duty of both is to protect the nation. Would all this noise have been made if the target had been Hitler or Stalin? The Left is being it's usual whining self and the Right is creating a political football which they will attempt to kick. The administration, whichever part was responsible, has done a good job.
+2 # camus11 2011-10-07 19:11
Yeah, to fascists (and sadly to most gop'ers of today) the constitution is optional. By the way, I believe if you'd stop goose-stepping long enough to check you would discover that Hitler was not an American citizen; Awlaki was.
+3 # Polimorphus 2011-10-07 07:35
It looks like there will be a hard state, a plutocracy driving a "free market", a compliant media, a vociferous but in- effective dissenting minority, and a dumbed down and passive majority coexisting in a war economy - permanently. Putin is probably best placed to learn from it!
+3 # Martintfre 2011-10-07 08:04
How are dictators created?

So what will be our Reichstag event?
+1 # carioca 2011-10-07 08:10
Ron Paul is the one politician who has taken this issue to heart.

It really burns me to see so many people attacking him.

Sure, he's not perfect, but the Alternet/RSN crowd should give him credit where credit is due.

I don't think any politician, Republican OR Democrat, has protested Washington's unilateral policy of assasination as much as he has.
+5 # 2011-10-07 10:31
A couple thousand years of jurisprudence has led to a rather fair system of impartial judgement of evidence, guilt, or innocence. I would like to see people like Awlaki captured and brought back for trial. Let's see the evidence! By the way, an earlier comment stated that Awlaki was guilty of treason. the crime of treason, according to wikipedia, occurs when someone aids a foreign power that is at war against his or her own country. It's not at all clear that Awlaki committed treason.
+2 # propsguy 2011-10-08 11:45
hitler also had a list of people who would have been"taken out" once he was dictator of the world. on the list? martha graham, the great choreographer and lincoln kirstein who co-founded NYCBallet. why were they on the hit list? who knows?

i knew ms graham and she told me

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.