With bin Laden taken out, is Awlaki next?

WASHINGTON, May 8 (UPI) -- Now that Osama bin Laden sleeps with the fishes, is Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, next on the Obama administration's hit list?

Immediately after bin Laden was killed by an elite Navy SEAL force in Pakistan and his body buried at sea, The New York Times said what many others were saying: Bin Laden's death was a tremendous political blow to terror organizations and a morale booster for the United States.

But bin Laden largely had become a symbolic figure and his al-Qaida was struggling to remain relevant as more vigorous organizations claimed the al-Qaida brand and carried out, or attempted to carry out, terror operations.

Bin Laden's No. 2 in al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is far less charismatic than his slain leader, and as an Egyptian commands far less loyalty from bin Laden's followers -- for the most part Persian Gulf Arabs who are crucial in supplying al-Qaida with money and fighters, the Times said.

Awlaki is seen as a far more likely inheritor of bin Laden's prestige and power -- kind of a godfather of terror -- though his methods of operation are much different.

In contrast to the super-organized bin Laden-inspired terror on Sept. 11, 2001, Awlaki fosters "lone wolf" terrorists who U.S. and European law enforcement officials say pose the most dangerous new threat.

Born in New Mexico in 1971 before his family moved back to Yemen, Awlaki is a cleric who uses idiomatic English in online speeches to potential recruits. He uses the Internet to inspire the commission of terror -- including YouTube videos, a Facebook page and a blog.

Awlaki has been linked to the Army psychiatrist accused of massacring 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009; the attempted bombing on Christmas 2009 of an airliner headed for Detroit, foiled when bomb materials under the suspect's clothes caught fire; a Times Square car bombing attempt in May last year -- foiled when explosives ignited but failed to explode -- and plastic explosives found on two cargo planes bound for the United States from Yemen in last October.

The Obama administration refused to say in open court whether the Yemeni cleric is in the crosshairs. However, civil libertarians are so certain that Awlaki is a U.S. government target for "extra-judicial killing" -- execution without the benefit of a court -- that they filed suit last year in Washington asking a federal judge to order the Obama administration to desist.

The case was muddled by the fact that Awlaki holds dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship. Should Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, be marked for death as a matter of national policy without due process?

At any given time, about 30 people are listed on the CIA's targeted killing program, former CIA counsel John Rizzo acknowledged in a recent interview with Newsweek. Targeting people overseas who actively try to kill Americans, any American any time, would seem to be a no-brainer in the war against terror.

But complicating the issue is a series of executive orders dating back to President Gerald Ford in 1976 banning assassinations by U.S. agencies. In executive order 11905, designed to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities, amid reports the CIA had tried to kill Fidel Castro in the 1960s, Ford said, "No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

President Jimmy Carter followed up the Ford ban in 1978 with one of his own, executive order 12036. President Ronald Reagan, in 1981's executive order 12333, was just as explicit as Ford, saying, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

Reagan's executive order has never been superseded.

However, the bans on assassination have never been strictly enforced. President George W. Bush targeted bin Laden, for example, with White House attorneys claiming an exemption to the assassination ban because of the war on terror. President Barack Obama and his administration not only targeted bin Laden, but succeeded in eliminating him.

Wide legal authority for any action, including a killing, could be construed under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution enacted by Congress one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The authorization targets those behind the Sept. 11 attacks, not separate threats like Awlaki -- unless the resolution is broadly interpreted to include anyone linked to al-Qaida .

The resolution says, "That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

In a 2002 report to the U.S. Congress, the Congressional Research Service said the presidential bans may have been narrow. "The term 'assassination' is not defined in (Reagan's executive order), nor was it defined in the predecessor orders," the report said. "In general, it appears that an assassination may be viewed as an intentional killing of a targeted individual committed for political purposes. However, the scope of the term seems to be the subject of differing interpretations, both generally, and depending upon whether the killing at issue took place in time of war or in time of peace."

The Washington lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Awlaki's father, Nasser al-Awlaki, who is in Yemen, by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, both headquartered in New York.

The two groups wanted a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Constitution and international law forbid the U.S. government from using targeted killings outside of armed conflicts, except to head off imminent threats of death, and then only as a last resort.

The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer argued in court if the federal judge didn't act, it would mean any president would have the "unreviewable authority to order the assassination of any U.S. citizen."

But U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed to the federal bench by Bush in 2001, dismissed the case last December, saying the father did not have the legal standing to claim rights for his son in court.

Besides, Bates said, "there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable."

On the same day as a hearing on the father's standing last year, Awlaki posted a lengthy video on the Internet. Speaking in Arabic and wearing traditional Yemeni clothing, Awlaki told his followers they didn't need clerical permission to kill Americans.

"Don't consult with anyone in fighting the Americans. Fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance."