The longer airstrikes continue, the shakier the president’s legal footing becomes.
On Dec. 12, 2013, a drone struck and killed 12 members of a wedding party in Yemen. If the U.S., which claims the strike was clean and justified, didn’t pony up the $800,000 in cash and guns as reparations, then who did?
U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Was the hit on his life based on faulty intelligence?
Iraq and Yemen aren’t the same — and what’s “working” in Yemen isn’t really even working in Yemen.
In September 2008, seven militants in Sanaa killed themselves and 12 others in the deadliest assault on a U.S. Embassy in a decade. And if not for an unlikely hero, things would have been unimaginably worse.
Why is the man who masterminded al-Qaeda’s first attack against the U.S. now working as a security official in Yemen?
“Other journalists are next.”
The U.S. and Yemen launch the biggest offensive against al-Qaeda in four years.
Written in the frenzied, emotional days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force was intended to give President Bush the ability to retaliate against whoever orchestrated the attacks. But more than 12 years later, this sentence remains the primary legal justification for nearly every covert operation around the world. Here’s how it came to be, and what it’s since come to mean.