skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: aclu ccr geithner/al-aulaqi obama

> Refine results with advanced case search

27 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 1 of 6   next > last >>

Barhoumi v. Obama et al.: Sufyian Barhoumi v. Barack Obama et al.

Order, 3 Sep 2009, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.


Barhoumi v. Obama et al.: Sufyian Barhoumi v. Barack Obama et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 11 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, United States

Sufyian Barhoumi is an Algerian nation who was allegedly providing assistance to al-Qaeda through buying certain electronic components needed for the building of remote-controlled explosive devices and through providing training to build such bombs. In July 2005, Barhoumi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of his/her detention).

The District Court’s opinion remained confidential but in the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeals, its findings and reasoning has been summarized. The District Court denied Barhoumi’s petition on the grounds that he was properly detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001. Barhoumi challenged the District Court’s decision, arguing that the evidence upon which the decision was based do not prove that he was “part of” an al-Qaeda-associated organization.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Barhoumi, finding that the adduced evidence was sufficient to warrant his detention under the 2001 AUMF. Accordingly, the District Court’s decision was affirmed.


Bensayah v. Obama: Belkacem Bensayah v. Barack Obama et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 28 Jun 2010, United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States

Belkacem Bensayah, an Algerian national, was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovine in 2001 on the suspicion of plotting an attack against the United States Embassy in Sarajevo. Together with five other Algerians, Bensayah was turned over to the United States Government and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). Bensayah was one of the plaintiffs in the Boumediene case, in the context of which, the Supreme Court of the United States found, in 2008, that Guantanamo detainees have a right to petition writs of habeas corpus (a legal action allowing the detainees to challenge the legality of their detention).

In November 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of five of the six plaintiffs. Bensayah, the sixth plaintiff, was denied release.

On 28 June 2010, the District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court, finding that the evidence against Bensayah must be reviewed since the Government changed its position and the evidence upon which the District Court relied in concluding that Bensayah supported the Al-Qaeda is now insufficient to show that he was also part of the organization.


Al-Aulaqi v. Obama et al.: Nasser Al-Aulaqi, on his own behalf and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Plaintiff, v. Barack H. Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Robert M. Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Leon E. Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants.

Memorandum Opinion, 7 Dec 2010, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

The Al-Aulaqi case is significant as it marks in all probability the first time that an American citizen has been killed by U.S. forces outside the borders of the U.S., without any trial, indictment or due process. The case revolves around Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship who was a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and had gone into hiding in Yemen, from where he regularly published videos propagating the jihad. The U.S. Treasury Department had allegedly designated him for targeted killing. Therefore, his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, filed a complaint claiming that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA unlawfully authorised the targeted killing, and seeking an injunction prohibiting them from intentionally killing his son, except in case he did present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and when there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralise the threat. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights intervened with a memorandum supporting Al-Aulaqi senior’s complaint.

The Columbia District Court found that plaintiff Al-Aulaqi, the father, had neither legal standing in court for his claims, nor that was the claim justiciable under the Alien Tort Statute. And if this was not enough, the Court also ruled that the political question doctrine barred it from adjudicating the case. On 7 December 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s complaint was dismissed on those grounds, while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on 30 September 2011.


American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice: American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Department of Justice et al.

Memorandum Opinion, 9 Sep 2011, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


<< first < prev   page 1 of 6   next > last >>