Dirty Wars

by Jeremy Scahill

Bin Fareed told me he believed that the threats against Anwar inadvertently drove him closer to AQAP. “Of course, we realized that [Anwar] had no choice. And really, they did drive him to hell.” The announcement by the US government that Anwar was marked for death, bin Fareed told me, “was a very, very big mistake.”

  On May 23, 2010, al Qaeda’s media wing in Yemen, al Malaeim, released a video titled “The First and Exclusive Meeting with Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki.” In the video, Awlaki thanked his interviewer, a bearded man dressed in all white, for “taking all these pains in order to reach here.” Awlaki was dressed in traditional Yemeni garb, sitting before a bookshelf filled with religious books. On his waist was a jambiya dagger, a tribal symbol worn by many men in Yemen. In the interview, Awlaki praised a recent speech given by al Qaeda’s number-two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, but also referred to “you people in Al Qaeda” and did not claim to be a member of the group. The interviewer, who repeatedly thanked him for giving them an “exclusive” interview, did not address Awlaki as a fellow member of al Qaeda.

  The interviewer for this al Qaeda propaganda video was remarkably direct, asking Awlaki many questions about the targeting of civilians, his relationship with Nidal Hasan and Abdulmutallab and his interpretation of various fatwas. He also asked Awlaki about the reports that he had been targeted. Speaking in Arabic, Awlaki told the interviewer, “It is not true that I am a fugitive. I move around among my tribesmen and in other parts of Yemen because the people of Yemen hate the Americans, and support the people of truth and the oppressed. I move around among the Aulaq tribe, and I get support from wide sectors of the people in Yemen.” Awlaki praised various mujahedeen movements across the globe, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia. “To the Muslims in general and to the inhabitants of the Peninsula especially, we should participate in this Jihad against America,” he said.

  Awlaki was undoubtedly developing an affinity for al Qaeda’s principles—and his public remarks were becoming indistinguishable from the pronouncements of al Qaeda. Still, words are not actions. To former DIA analyst Joshua Foust, it appeared as though some within the US intelligence community were elevating Awlaki’s status based on the fear he was able to inspire through his words. Although he found Awlaki’s praise for al Qaeda and calls for terrorist attacks against the United States reprehensible, Foust did not believe these statements constituted evidence of a senior operational role in al Qaeda. “Within AQAP itself, he’s literally middle management,” he told me at the time. “Even the AQAP leadership treats him like he’s just a subordinate, who needs to shut up and do what he’s told.” Foust added: “I think a lot of the focus on Awlaki doesn’t make any sense, because we assign him a kind of importance and influence that he doesn’t really have.”

  After the Christmas Day bomb plot, the White House changed its tune on Awlaki, claiming he had gone operational, with some officials comparing him to Osama bin Laden. “I think it’s an exaggeration, frankly, to think he is necessarily a new bin Laden,” Nakhleh, the former senior CIA officer, told me. “We would not have even thought much about him if it weren’t for Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber.”

  Although Awlaki was developing relationships with various al Qaeda figures in Shabwah and elsewhere, and his status was rising within its ranks, well-connected Yemenis who had interviewed AQAP leaders told me that he was not an operational member of the group. “Anwar al Awlaki was not a leader in al Qaeda, he did not hold any official post at all,” said journalist Abdul Rezzaq al Jamal. He told me that AQAP viewed Awlaki as an ally and that “the thing that united him and al Qaeda is the hostility to the US.” Awlaki “agrees with al Qaeda in vision, rationale and strategies. The efforts that were made by Awlaki in the framework of AQAP’s work, especially in terms of recruiting in the West, were very big.”

  Nasser Awlaki acknowledged that his son was beginning to refer to members of al Qaeda as “my brothers” in interviews, but he did not believe his son was a member of AQAP. “He never said that he was member of al Qaeda,” he told me, speculating that “maybe in ideology, maybe Anwar came to believe in some of the ideas of al Qaeda, that you cannot take back your land by peaceful means, you have to fight for it. Anybody who attacks you, you have to defend yourself.” Nasser added, “Anwar is a very courageous man. I tell you, definitely, I know my son. If he was a member of that organization, he will have no problems to say it.” After all, having already been marked for death by the United States, he had nothing to lose.

  Even members of Yemen’s government were concerned that the United States was inflating Awlaki’s status as a terrorist leader. Yemen’s foreign minister, Abu Bakr al Qirbi, told reporters in Sana’a, “Anwar al-Awlaki has always been looked at as a preacher rather than a terrorist and shouldn’t be considered as a terrorist unless the Americans have evidence that he has been involved in terrorism.”

  Awlaki had not been charged with any crimes by the US government. Nor had the Americans publicly offered any evidence that Awlaki was the AQAP ringleader they made him out to be. Awlaki’s case would cut to the heart of one of the key questions raised by the increasing role targeted assassinations were playing in US foreign policy: Could the American government assassinate it own citizens without due process?

  The CIA’s Dating Service

  DENMARK AND YEMEN, 2010 —While the US manhunt for Anwar Awlaki in Yemen intensified, Morten Storm was busy trying to find Awlaki a European wife. Unbeknownst to Awlaki, the Danish intelligence asset was coordinating his bride search with the CIA. Storm had posted messages on websites frequented by Awlaki’s fans and soon received a note from a Croatian woman who had recently converted to Islam. “Aminah” was the name she had adopted after her conversion, though she was raised as a Catholic. She had been a track star in high school and worked with troubled youth in Zagreb. “I was wondering will he search for second wife, I proposed him a marriage. I don’t know how silly it is,” Aminah wrote to Storm. “I deeply respect him and all the things he do.... I would go with him anywhere. I am 32 years old and I am ready for dangerous things. I am not afraid of death or to die in the sake of Allah.”

  Storm continued corresponding with Awlaki and told him about Aminah. He also informed the PET, the Danish intelligence agency, that he was in the process of arranging a marriage for Awlaki. The PET contacted the CIA. Storm claimed the intelligence officials were “overjoyed.” Together, the intelligence agencies came up with a plan, should the marriage plans work out: Storm would provide Aminah with a suitcase outfitted with a tracking device that would ultimately reveal Awlaki’s location.

  Awlaki contacted Storm again on February 17, 2010, and said he wanted to meet Aminah. “If you visit her, I can upload a video recording of myself as [an] encrypted file, and you can get her to hear it, so she is sure that [it] is me,” he wrote. Days later, Awlaki wrote again to describe his improved living conditions: “I currently do not live in a tent, but in a house [that] belongs to a friend. I’m not leaving the house, and am in a situation for my wife to be with me all the time. I prefer this residence [to] a tent in the mountains, because it gives me ability to read, write and research.” Following the message, Storm said he met with CIA and PET officials in Helsingør, Denmark. Taking part in the meeting was a veteran Denmark-based CIA contact who went by the name Jed and, according to Storm, a CIA official who flew in from Washington and called himself Alex.

  Storm met with Aminah in Vienna, Austria, on March 8, 2010, outside the international bus station. His trip was verified by multiple receipts reviewed by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Storm claimed that when he met Aminah, he was shadowed by his PET and CIA handlers. Aminah, Storm alleged, convinced him she was willing to accept the potential consequences of her decision to travel to Yemen to marry Awlaki. Storm taught the young woman to send encrypted e-mails at Awlaki’s request, and at a second meeting, he showed her a video the cleric had made for her. “This recording is done specifically for Sister Aminah at her request and the brother who’s carrying this
recording is a trustworthy brother,” Awlaki said in the video. “So having said that, I pray Allah guides to that which is best for you in this life and in the hereafter. And guides you to choose what is better for you regarding this proposal. I would also suggest, if possible, if you could also do a recorded message and send it over. That would be great.” According to Storm, the video moved Aminah to tears.

  Aminah responded with two videos of her own. In the first she wore a hijab, leaving only her face visible. She described feeling “nervous” and said the experience was “awkward.” In the second video, she removed her veil. “Brother, it’s me without the scarf, so you can see my hair,” she said in accented English. “I hope you are happy with me, inshallah.” The two agreed to marry in Yemen.

  Awlaki sent Storm an encrypted e-mail describing the things Aminah would need to bring to Yemen: “Warm weather clothing, her personal hygiene stuff, etc. Anything she would need during a month to two month period. She shouldn’t have more than a medium sized suitcase and a carry-on bag. She should have with her at least $3,000.” The CIA then contacted Storm. In a document obtained by Jyllands-Posten, Awlaki is referred to as “the Hook” and Aminah “the sister.” The CIA suggested that Storm could “use the Hook’s guidance as a reason to give the sister the suitcase and the cosmetic case.”

  Storm returned to Vienna on May 18, 2010, to purchase Aminah’s ticket to Yemen and provide her with clothing and $3,000, all of which he said was paid for by the CIA. He also gave Aminah the bugged suitcase that, if things went according to plan, would set her and Awlaki up for execution by drone. Aminah flew to Yemen on June 2. Storm said he went to a safe house rented by the CIA and PET in Denmark. “We sat there, had a barbecue and had a great party,” Storm told Jyllands-Posten. Aminah’s journey, he recalled, was constantly monitored.

  Two days later Storm received a text message from his Danish handler. “Congratulations brother, you just got rich, very rich,” it read. The intelligence agent included smiley face emoticons in the text message. Storm claimed he collected his reward on June 9, 2010, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel near Copenhagen, adding that both a CIA and PET officer were present at the exchange and that the PET officer was handcuffed to the briefcase that contained his reward. The suitcase was filled with $250,000 in bundled $100 bills. Storm asked for the code to open the suitcase. “Try 007,” the CIA agent told him. Storm snapped a photo of the cash in the briefcase and later provided it to Jyllands-Posten as evidence to support his story. Multiple sources confirmed that he received the payment.

  The CIA and its allies celebrated what they believed would be a break in the hunt for Awlaki, but their plot soon ran into trouble. Aminah was scheduled to attend a language school in Sana’a for two weeks before meeting her groom-to-be. When Awlaki’s aides arrived to pick her up to bring her to Awlaki, they told her she could not bring her suitcase but could only bring a plastic bag containing her belongings. The CIA’s bugged suitcase would not make the trek. Soon after, Awlaki and Aminah were married. The CIA had inadvertently found a European wife for one of its most-wanted targets. Awlaki later sent Storm a message thanking him for the hookup.

  “The Auction of the Assassin”

  WASHINGTON, DC, 2010 —In the halls of the US Congress, lawmakers fell into two basic camps on the issue of targeting Anwar Awlaki, a US citizen, for assassination: silence or support. It was not until three months after the plan was revealed that a US representative spoke out against it. “I don’t support it—period,” Democrat Dennis Kucinich told me at the time. “I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this.” Kucinich said he had sent several letters to the Obama administration raising questions about the potential unconstitutionality of the policy, as well as possible violations of international law, but said he had received no response.

  “With all the smart people that are in that administration, they’ve got to know the risks that they’re taking here with violations of law,” Kucinich said. He called the policy “extra-constitutional, extra-judicial,” saying it “vitiates the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one. That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life.” He added: “All this is being done in the name of national security. How do we know why certain people are being killed? I mean, who’s making that decision? It’s like a God-like power. You can put your finger on someone’s image and say, ‘This person is gone.’”

  The fact that a US citizen was on the hit list was not Kucinich’s only concern. A popular Democratic president and constitutional law scholar pushing the boundaries beyond the extreme policies of the Bush administration, Kucinich believed, would have far-reaching consequences. “We are acting out of fear. We’ve forgotten who we are,” he told me. “We’re knocking out pillars of our democratic traditions here. The right to a trial? Gone. The right to be able to confront those who are accusing you? Gone. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? Gone. All of these anchors are being pulled away.” He added, “Don’t think for a moment that we can do these kinds of things without it having a direct effect here at home. You can’t have one America abroad and another one at home. It’s all the same. The erosion of integrity, the erosion of democratic values, the erosion of a benevolent intent all augurs a nation in which the basic rights of our own people can no longer be secured. They are up for the auction of the assassin.”

  In July 2010, Kucinich introduced a bill, HR 6010, “to prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens.” In the bill, Kucinich referred to the various executive orders dating back to the Ford administration prohibiting assassination, including Executive Order 12333, which stated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” In short, the bill called on Congress to affirm that American citizens had a right to due process before being executed. “The use of extrajudicial force against a citizen of the United States that is outside of the internationally recognized battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan constitutes a violation of the law of armed conflict,” the bill declared. “It is in the best interest of the United States to respect the rule of law and set the example for upholding the principles of international and domestic law.”

  Only six other members of the House of Representatives, and not a single senator, signed on to support Kucinich’s bill. It died immediately.

  By July, US intelligence officials acknowledged there had been “almost a dozen” strikes aimed at killing Awlaki. None of them had succeeded. The leading US organizations that had fought the Bush administration’s war on terror policies—the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—had been assessing the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, primarily focused on the increased US drone strikes in Pakistan. But now that a US citizen had been identified as a target of the program, they believed it needed to be challenged in the US justice system. It was “a very important opportunity to challenge the [assassination] program because we actually have the name of someone—it is not an after-the-fact killing—it’s a case we can bring to try to stop killing with respect to someone that we know, based on what has been reported, is on a kill list,” said Pardiss Kebriaei, a CCR senior staff attorney.

  Kebriaei and her colleagues reviewed the publicly available facts about Awlaki and came to the conclusion that Awlaki’s sermons and comments in interviews, while offensive to many Americans, “look very much like protected First Amendment activity to us” and that, “if he does present a threat, and if what he is doing is not protected and criminal, then he should be charged and tried and given due process like anyone, particularly a US citizen.” Kebriaei said that if the United States killed one of its own citizens in a foreign country where war had not been declared without charging the individual with a crime, it would amount to �
�a statement by the US that it is in fact claiming this authority and carrying out this authority to use lethal military force against suspects of terrorism, wherever they may be found. And the implications of that legally, morally, politically are terrifying to me.”

  After CCR and ACLU lawyers reached Nasser Awlaki through their legal partners in Yemen, he retained them to represent him on a pro bono basis in a lawsuit challenging the right of the Obama administration to kill his son without due process. “I will do my best to convince my son to [surrender], to come back, but they are not giving me time. They want to kill my son. How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered,” Nasser said.

  Days after Nasser first spoke with the lawyers in the United States, the Obama administration took swift action to try to ensure that the case would never be heard in US courts. On July 16, 2010, the Treasury Department officially labeled Anwar Awlaki a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” Rather than the president or defense secretary or the CIA director, the White House put forward the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Stuart Levey, to make the case that Awlaki had become “operational,” directly accusing him of “preparing” and instructing Abdulmutallab “for his operation,” alleging that “after receiving this direction from Awlaki, Abdulmutallab obtained the explosive device he used in the attempted Christmas Day attack.” Levey declared that Awlaki had “involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism—fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents” but provided no evidence for these charges.

  The designation by the Treasury Department made it a crime for American lawyers to represent Awlaki without getting a license from the government. On July 23, the ACLU and CCR filed an urgent request for a license. When they were not granted one, they sued the Treasury Department. On August 4, in response to the lawsuit, the Treasury Department changed its position, allowing the lawyers to represent Awlaki. A month later, the CCR and ACLU filed a lawsuit against President Obama, CIA director Panetta, and Defense Secretary Gates, challenging their intention to target Awlaki for assassination, charging that it was unlawful. “Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury,” the suit alleged. “The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.” They asked a federal judge to bar the president, the CIA and JSOC “from intentionally killing” Awlaki and to order them “to disclose the criteria that are used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen.”