U.S. Drone Strike Assassinates Anwar al-Awlaki, American Citizen, Without Trial

A CIA drone strike in Yemen kills Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and Islamic cleric, without charges, trial, or judicial process. Al-Awlaki becomes the first American citizen to be deliberately assassinated by his own government since the Civil War era. President Obama personally approved placing al-Awlaki on the kill list based on classified intelligence that he had moved beyond propaganda to an operational role in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The killing raises profound constitutional questions about executive power to execute American citizens without due process, and sets precedents that future presidents will exploit to claim authority to assassinate citizens in secret based on classified evidence never subject to judicial review.

Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and educated at Colorado State University, becoming an influential Islamic preacher with sermons distributed widely online. After the 9/11 attacks he initially condemned the violence, but his views radicalized and by 2009 he was openly calling for jihad against the United States from his base in Yemen. U.S. intelligence agencies claimed al-Awlaki progressed from ideological inspiration to operational involvement in terrorist plots, including email exchanges with Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and alleged involvement in the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomb plot and 2010 cargo plane bomb plot.

The Obama administration’s legal justification for killing al-Awlaki without trial rests on several contested claims: that he posed an imminent threat of violent attack against Americans; that capture was not feasible; that the killing occurred in an armed conflict governed by laws of war rather than law enforcement due process; and that the president has inherent authority as commander-in-chief to target Americans who join enemy forces. A secret Justice Department memo authored by the Office of Legal Counsel constructs a legal framework claiming the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process does not require judicial review before killing a citizen abroad who is an “operational leader” of al-Qaeda.

The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights file lawsuits challenging the government’s authority to kill citizens without trial, both before and after al-Awlaki’s death. The administration successfully argues that courts should dismiss the cases, claiming state secrets privilege and that targeting decisions are political questions beyond judicial review. This means the president can place American citizens on kill lists, order their assassination based on classified evidence, and prevent any court from reviewing whether the killing was legal, constitutional, or based on accurate intelligence. The legal framework effectively places executive targeting decisions beyond judicial oversight.

The assassination is controversial even within the administration. Justice Department officials raise concerns about killing a citizen without judicial process. Attorney General Eric Holder eventually provides legal cover by delivering a speech claiming “due process” does not necessarily mean “judicial process”—arguing that internal executive branch deliberations constitute sufficient process before killing a citizen. This redefinition of due process abandons centuries of legal precedent establishing that deprivation of life requires neutral adjudication, not decision-making by the same officials ordering the killing.

Two weeks after al-Awlaki’s death, another drone strike in Yemen kills his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, along with several other people. The administration claims the teenager’s death was not targeted but resulted from a strike aimed at other militants. Abdulrahman was eating dinner with relatives when the drone missiles hit. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs later defends the killing by suggesting the teenager “should have had a more responsible father”—an argument that children of suspected terrorists are legitimate collateral damage.

The al-Awlaki killings establish dangerous precedents. They normalize the concept of presidential kill lists including American citizens; expand the definition of “imminent threat” to include general affiliation with terrorist organizations rather than specific planned attacks; claim “feasibility” of capture is determined solely by executive branch without judicial review; and redefine due process to exclude courts entirely from life-and-death decisions. While al-Awlaki was undoubtedly a terrorist propagandist and possibly an operational figure, the decision to resolve his case through assassination rather than capture and trial abandons constitutional protections that apply even to the worst criminals. The precedent allows future presidents to claim authority to kill any citizen anywhere based on secret evidence, with no court able to review whether the evidence supports the death sentence. The al-Awlaki assassination exemplifies how counterterrorism erodes core constitutional constraints when courts defer to executive power and public fear of terrorism overrides commitment to due process.