The green light gives Bilal Abdul Kareem, a journalist operating in Syria, the ability to seek answers as to whether he is included on a US kill list.
US government lawyers asked the US Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District Columbia to dismiss the case, claiming that Kareem is not able to evidence his case based on the secrecy involved in targeted killing decision making in the US military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
“Due process is not merely an old and dusty procedural obligation … It is a living, breathing concept that protects US persons from overreaching government action even, perhaps, on an occasion of war,” Collyer said in her ruling.
Five Attempted Assassinations
Kareem has escaped being killed by drone strike on five occasions, including two strikes on cars he was travelling in. Two additional strikes were executed on his independent news agency, On the Ground News, while he was working in the studio. Kareem can now directly challenge the US government in court on the procedure of selecting him to be killed without notice or challenge.
Al Jazeera journalist Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan had his case dismissed as “speculative” by the same judge. The dual Pakistani-Syrian citizen “alleged that a leaked US government document indicated that he was named by a National Security Agency metadata tracking programme allegedly used by the CIA and called Skynet”, the newspaper reported. Zaidan was the first person to interview Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda’s former leader, in the 1990s.
Drone Strikes Double Under Trump
Former US President Barack Obama previously warned high risk counter-terrorism operations should be used sparingly and only after internal review. His successor Donald Trump has sidestepped that rule and provided the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US Military broader powers.
In addition, the US considers some countries “areas of activity hostilities” or temporary battlefields where looser targeting rules apply. US drone warfare has taken the lives of some 10,858 individuals since 2004, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us