A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen

[The Magistrate]

356. Thank You,Ma'am: Much Appreciated

Pages 65-80, on 'the political question' are also most instructive.


'The type of relief that plaintiff seeks only underscores the impropriety of judicial review
here. Plaintiff requests both a declaration setting forth the standard under which the United
States can select individuals for targeted killing as well as an injunction prohibiting defendants from intentionally killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi unless he meets that standard -- i.e., unless he
"presents 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."
Compl., Prayer for Relief (a), (c). Yet plaintiff concedes that the "'imminence' requirement" of
his proffered legal standard would render any "real-time judicial review" of targeting decisions
"infeasible," Pl.'s Opp. at 17, 30, and he therefore urges this Court to issue his requested
preliminary injunction and then enforce the injunction "through an after-the-fact contempt
motion or an after-the-fact damages action." Id. at 17-18. But as the D.C. Circuit has explained,
"t is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's
determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." '

'Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, in holding that the political question doctrine bars
plaintiff's claims, this Court does not hold that the Executive possesses "unreviewable authority
to order the assassination of any American whom he labels an enemy of the state." Rather, the Court only concludes that it lacks the capacity to determine whether a
specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an
"operational" member of AQAP, presents such a threat to national
security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him.'