September 25th, 2010
09:40 AM ET

U.S. cites risk to security in seeking lawsuit dismissal

Anwar al-Awlaki has been linked to al Qaeda in Yemen by U.S. officials.

The Obama administration has invoked the state secret privilege in seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of the father of Yemeni-American cleric and militant Anwar al-Awlaki, which sought to prevent the U.S. government from trying to target him for assassination.

The government contended in a court filing that was submitted early Saturday morning that the case "would require the disclosure of highly sensitive national security information concerning alleged military and intelligence actions overseas."

"The plaintiff has demanded the government disclose a wide variety of classified information that could harm our national security. It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism, Matthew Miller, Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement Saturday.

The court filing said the injunction sought by the al-Awlaki's father "would be unprecedented, improper and extraordinarily dangerous." It would "improperly inject the courts" into the administration's decisions on "how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks."

Miller notes the lawsuit - which never denies Anwar al-Awlaki's militant activity - said if al-Awlaki "wishes to access our legal system," he should surrender and then "be held accountable for his actions."

Read the complete story on

soundoff (36 Responses)
  1. Mehdi General Dr Bad

    Any One want TO Hire A Translator ?

    September 25, 2010 at 7:03 pm | Report abuse |
  2. phil

    After 9/11 Congress commissioned over 300 investigators and tasked them with finding out what really happened. The FBI's head of forensics, Dr. Whitehurst, found conclusive evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives. Ashley Banfield, who was there, exclaimed "I smell cordite!" live on the air. When this evidence was presented, Congress refused to hear it in open-session..."for reasons of national security". Foensic evidence does not make a conspiracy.

    September 25, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  3. phil

    Michele Gomis, the "terrorists" could sneak accross our borders as easily as Mexicans. If they really wanted all of US dead they could easily poison our unguarded water supplies. Why don't they do this? Think about it for a while and post a reply?

    September 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michele Gomis

      Their incompetence is our best weapon.

      September 25, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Jim Brieske

    phil. After having read comments from many people on a variety of subjects, I have reached another correct conclusion.
    You are the biggest idiot of all.

    September 25, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
  5. phil run from the issues I've raised with a mere personal insult? Imagine how you would look onstage during this debate. What would the audience think of you? And I'm sad to say I would agree with them for once. (smile)

    September 25, 2010 at 8:04 pm | Report abuse |
  6. phil

    Jim (click) in case your ignorance keeps you from knowing what (click) means......................!

    September 25, 2010 at 8:09 pm | Report abuse |
  7. phil

    Was National Security at risk when our government refused to release the Pentagon's video surveilance records of 9/11 to the victims families requesting them? No, because after the families sued under the "freedom of information act" the video was released. You've seen it by now, or maybe not. It hasn't been shown on tv that I know of. The vid clearly shows a missile hitting the building. So why isn't that image in our heads like the Jets hitting the towers? Because corporate media knows if they show it, the vast majority of you will just change the channel and they lose advertising revenue. Just one more example of how "reasons of national security"............... aren't

    September 25, 2010 at 8:38 pm | Report abuse |
  8. phil

    Jim, you can't handle the truth any more than the rest of US can. The truth kinda sucks in that regard huh?

    September 25, 2010 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Michelle

    I don't know what click means. Someone tell me? Is it the sound that comes from numb balled ones skull when he's thinking real hard?

    September 26, 2010 at 2:38 am | Report abuse |
    • termlimits

      Yea, that's about it!

      September 26, 2010 at 3:59 am | Report abuse |
  10. Philip

    We have due process here in this country. Criminals should be indicted and face a public hearing in broad daylight. That would include Muslim citizens.

    September 26, 2010 at 7:57 am | Report abuse |
  11. phil

    I sometimes wonder why binLaden hasn't been indicted. He doesn't need to be there for this procedure. All that is required is a federal or district attorney going to a judge with convincing evidence. Other criminals from overseas are, and for less serious crimes. No, 9/11 was not an act of war, it was a crime. We know this because Lloys of London paid for 80% of the damages to the multiple trade tower buildings that were insured through them. Acts of war are not covered by insurance, as we all know. Anyway, I find this very odd.

    September 26, 2010 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Vetti

    The thing is that when growing up, in school, we were always told that the United State was a hard country to be easily attacked because of its good home security and advanced military tech.,etc.,etc...and was said with such pride and reassurance. What happen then? (911 attack). Either people being lazy and layback and not doing their job in protecting this country or how else will you explain it?

    September 27, 2010 at 9:36 am | Report abuse |
1 2