When the President orders American citizens killed without trial, Obama's attorneys bluntly argued in a September 25 brief before the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, these are not crimes but non-justiciable political questions. In other words, the courts can't prevent or judge the right or wrong of Presidential assassination lists because these are questions under the political judgment of the President.
If one leader can order the death of any citizen without review by a court or even releasing a reason or evidence could there be a more perfect definition of the word dictatorship?
The case that brought Obama's lawyers out of the pro-assassination closet is Nasser al Aulaqi v. Obama, a case brought by the father of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen who has allegedly allied himself with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Numerous news agencies have reported that the younger Aulaqi is at the top of a U.S. citizen assassination list created by the President.
The father, Obama's own lawyers admit, doesn't want to get the court to create a broad injunction against killing his son under any circumstances. Rather, he's seeking a much milder ruling banning the court from assassinating his son when he could just as easily be captured and returned to the United States for trial. As Obama's attorneys summarize in their brief, Nasser al Aulaqi does not seek to categorically stop the United States from using lethal force against his son under all circumstances. Rather, plaintiff seeks to enjoin the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, from 'intentionally killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi' outside an armed conflict 'unless he is found to present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat.'
