-
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Use of drones and civilian deaths have been a controversial aspect of targeted killings. (photo credit: USAF)
Abstract - America’s use of targeted killings has expanded significantly in the War on Terror. Critics view these targeted killings as a violation of Presidential Executive Orders that ban assassinations, a violation of due process of American citizens, and an over-extension of Congress’ Joint Resolution 23. Advocates suggest that it is an important strategy in the unconventional War on Terror.
Justification for the use of targeted killings are primarily based on Joint Resolution 23 which authorizes the President to take action against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Use of targeted killings are further justified on the notion that a state has the right to act in its self-defense when threatened.
Targeted killings have successfully eliminated key leaders of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden. However, after over a decade of the War on Terror, Al Qaeda remains active in various parts of the world and still represents a potential threat to the United States.
– Grayspirit’s Abstract/Commentary
Introduction
America’s War on Terror has created new language and policy regarding the use of targeted killings against individuals. Of course, the War on Terror has not been conventional by any means. The enemy is not another state. Instead, the enemy is a loose coalition of organizations and individuals. The enemy is not a well defined uniformed combatant deployed on a well defined battlefield. Instead, the enemy often wears the clothing of civilians and fights among civilians. The enemy targets non-combatants in its fight rather than the armed forces. Their actions appear random and designed to create terror rather than achieve battlefield victories.
The use of targeted killings has been an increasingly important strategy in the War on Terror. It also remains a very controversial strategy that is both praised and criticized internationally.
Issues Associated With Targeted Killings
In this light, America now finds itself engaged in a new kind of war. It is a kind of war that increasingly pulls America towards the use of targeted killings – an unconventional approach to unconventional warfare.
Where can we go in pursuit of a targeted killing?
In some instances, targeted killings have occurred in countries that are not at war with the United States. Some of these countries have even been allies of the United States. What rules govern the geographic scope of where America can go to conduct a targeted killing?
What is an acceptable level of collateral damage?
The concept of targeted killings is increasingly tied to technology. Technology implies precision and the focused use of lethal force with a minimum of collateral damage. Technologies have included unmanned drones armed with missiles, the use of air strikes with precision guided weapons, and the use of high technology special operations forces on the ground.
However, despite the implied precision, civilian deaths can and do occur. What rules govern civilian casualties when conducting a targeted killing? Can the death of even one civilian be justifiable?
Can the government target American citizens?
Targeted killings has been the subject of growing debate in the United States. The recent targeting of American citizens “fighting for the enemy” has raised questions among some legal experts. Do these citizens have the right to some kind of due process? Or is it now possible for the state to declare someone guilty without a trial and order that person’s execution?
Is this a type of warfare against poor developing countries and peoples?
The scope of targeted killings also seems to be increasing. Targeting now occurs in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen on a regular basis. In the War on Terror, targets are typically Al Qaeda leaders. However, there is no technology so advanced that can avoid civilian casualties. So, in the pursuit of a terrorist, are there situations where civilian deaths are justifiable – where civilians are citizens of a state that is not engaged in hostility towards America?
It seems unlikely that the United States would launch a missle attack on a target in London, England. But it seems that there are few questions asked when the target is in the countryside of Pakistan.
America’s Ban on Assassinations
During the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency had prepared a list of political targets in Guatemala for possible assassination in the early 1950′s. The ‘hit list’ included the Guatemalan president. Other leadership targets for elimination included Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. These ‘assassination lists’ came to light in the research conducted by the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Agencies (chaired by Senator Frank Church).
During the post-Vietnam era, these revelations placed a significant amount of pressure on the government for reform of foreign intelligence activities. In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905 which attempted to reform and improve oversight over America’s intelligence agencies. The Order also prohibited any US government employee from conspiring or engaging in the act of political assassination.
President Jimmy Carter revised the orders in 1978. His Executive Order 12306 continued to reform and structure the intelligence agencies. In addition, Carter continued the prohibition of assassination by anyone employed or acting on behalf of the US government. A few years later, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 which continued the assassination ban and the restructuring of America’s intelligence agencies.
There seemed to be consensus in government against the use of assassinations as an instrument of America’s foreign policy. However, this began to change following the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. Shortly after the attack, Congress passed Joint Resolution 23. This resolution granted President Bush the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those who had planned, authorized, executed, or supported the September 11 attacks.
President Bush subsequently signed a finding which identified Osama bin Laden and others as the perpetrators behind the attack. Since then, American covert operations and targeted killings have expanded significantly. Under President Obama, the targeted killing lists have included a variety of Al Qaeda related targets in other geographic locations such as Yemen – even after Osama bin Laden’s death. Indeed, the circle of ‘targets’ seems to have expanded beyond those who were behind the September 11 attacks.
So, if political assassinations are prohibited by law, how can targeted killings be justified?
Definitions and the Rationale for Targeted Killings
A targeted killing is the intentional and premeditated use of lethal force against an individual or group. It is therefore not an act of normal law enforcement which would focus on apprehending a target.
A targeted killing may be committed by a government or its agents in a time of armed conflict. The target may be a combatant or a civilian who directly participates in hostile action against the United States. Generally, a targeted killing would attempt to minimize harm against innocent civilians. Thus, a targeted killing is not a reprisal or punitive attack on a civilian population. And, it is not an assassination which would typically target high profile persons. Targeted killing assumes the possibility of the death of civilians, but in a manner as to minimize the number of deaths. And it may include a US citizen as the objective in a targeted killing.
A targeted killing may also be committed by a government or its agents during a time of peace. The use of lethal force becomes ‘legal’ when required to protect life and there are no other means (e.g. capture or incapacitation) available for such protection. A government has the right to defend itself. Targeted killings do not require a wartime situation, but it does require a situation where the government is acting to protect lives.
A targeted killing may also involve crossing national boundaries when used in self defense. Usually this would be done if the United States a) has the consent of the other country or, b) if that other country is itself responsible for the armed attack or, c) that country is incapable of preventing the armed attack from its territory.
Analysis of Targeted Killings
The primary risk in the use of targeted killings as an instrument of foreign policy lies in the very justification for its use. Few would argue against any country having the right to defend itself. However, justification for self-defense depends heavily on the perception of a threat. And, there is always the danger of the ‘perception of a threat’ being defined too broadly.
The other risk lies with the implementation of a targeted killing policy. The executive orders issued by Ford, Carter and Reagan were not intended to be simple prohibitions of assassination. Instead, they are relatively complex documents that attempted to define the structure, function, and oversight of America’s foreign intelligence community. If there are flaws within that community, abuses with any kind of a targeted killing policy could occur.
The third risk of a targeted killing policy is the potential for political repercussions when civilian deaths occur (collateral damage). There is the danger of creating sympathy and support for the targeted groups or individuals. In the complex Middle East, it’s easy to imagine how the taking of one life could easily create 10 more potential enemies for America. Instead of bring the conflict to an end, the death of a ‘target’ could actually create an endless cycle of violence and revenge.
Summary of Targeted Killings
The use of targeted killings is now an integral part of America’s War on Terror. Despite its critics, it may be a far more effective and less costly means of dealing with terrorists than wars (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq). Whether it is accomplished by targeted air strikes, the use of drone missles, or the insertion of a special operations team of soldiers the human and financial costs may be lower than the costs associated with traditional warfare.
What remains to be seen however, is whether or not a policy of targeted killings can accomplish broader political goals. As currently practiced, targeted killings seem to have been successful in eliminating the leadership of America’s terrorist enemy. However, today targeted killings have now expanded into Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and Al Qaeda though weakened remains an active terrorist organization.
Bibliography
Assassination Ban and E.O. 12333: A Brief Summary, CRS Report for Congress
Memorandum on Executive Order 12333 and Assassination, Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General
Study on Targeted Killings, UN Human Rights Council
Targeted Killings, Council on Foreign Relations
“Targeted Killings:” US Policy Towards Use of Covert Operations Involving Assassination, Professor Gordon Bowen, Mary Baldwin College
The post Targeted Killings in the War on Terror appeared first on American Conflicts.