Last week's killing of the notorious cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen seems so far like a clear political victory for President Obama.
Even the Republican House Homeland Security Chairman, Peter King, lauded this latest targeted killing by U.S. Special Forces as "a tremendous tribute to President Obama and the men and women of our intelligence community."
But was the killing lawful? For that matter, is the growing U.S. practice of targeting individuals around the world for death with remote-controlled drones or secret Special Operations raids a legal way to fight terrorism?
The jury's out. But the Obama administration could do far more to dispel claims that it wasn't, and to win broader global support for its counterterrorism strategy, by providing more details on its rapidly accelerating use of targeted killings.
The Obama administration has justified targeting Awlaki in court papers by saying that the Yemen-based cleric played an "operational role" in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an affiliate of al Qaeda.
"He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009," President Obama said on Friday. "He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010. And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda."
But what does it mean for an individual to play an "operational role" in a terrorist organization? Under international laws of war, a targeted killing is only lawful if the target was, at the time of the strike, either "directly participating in hostilities" or performing a "continuous combat function." Alternatively, the U.S. government could kill someone in self-defense if he poses an imminent threat to the United States.
Even assuming there's evidence to support the president's claim that Awlaki "directed" the 2009 and 2010 failed attempts to attack U.S. interests, was Awlaki directly participating in attacks, or otherwise posing an imminent threat, at the time he was killed? If not, there's no justification for not arresting him and putting him on trial for those past acts, if his arrest in Yemen was feasible.
The other question is whether we're even at war with AQAP. That al Qaeda "affiliate" has not been officially named as responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks -- which was the United States' justification for going to war in the first place. The U.S. government claims the authority to detain individuals who are members of or substantially supporting al Qaeda or "associated forces," but that's not the same as killing them.
Osama bin Laden, a self-declared leader of al Qaeda, was an easier case. But it's not clear that the U.S. can lawfully deem even an "operational" leader of an "affiliated" terrorist group somewhere in the world a legitimate U.S. military target.
Much has been made of the fact that Awlaki was an American citizen. Glenn Greenwald at Salon and the ACLU have both suggested that he was therefore entitled to "due process" before he could be targeted. While his citizenship does raise constitutional questions, when it comes to the broader questions raised by U.S. targeted killing policy, Awlaki's citizenship is beside the point.
The real problem that the Awlaki killing highlights is that we know so little about the U.S. policy toward targeted killings -- who it's targeting and on what basis. That may not seem like such a pressing matter to Americans right now, when the U.S. government is the one in charge of the Special Operations night raids and remote-controlled drones. But when China or Russia or Iran starts using drone technology to target individuals they deem enemies, some of whom may be located here in the United States, the question may take on a new urgency. And in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where U.S. targeted killings have so far been concentrated, the "collateral damage" of civilians killed in these attacks is already inciting considerable regional anger and stoking virulent anti-U.S. sentiment.
The Obama administration could go a long way towards thwarting these sorts of collateral consequences to its targeted killing policy by being honest about who it's targeting and why, and exactly how many un-targeted civilians are being killed in the process. The administration needs to explain to the world how and why we're engaging in targeted killings -- and why, if lawful, they are better than an indiscriminate war on terrorism. Only by demonstrating that it's pursuing a legitimate strategy can the United States possibly hope to win global support and cooperation. In the long run, those will be critical to any lasting U.S. victory.
Follow Daphne Eviatar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/deviatar
Arsalan Iftikhar: Welcome To The Post-Osama Era
Peter D. Rosenstein: Mr. President: If Need Be, Shut the Government Down
Al-Awlaki targeted in Yemen - CNN.com
BBC News - Yemen al-Qaeda head Anwar al-Awlaki 'targeted by ...
Anwar al-Awlaki, U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric, killed in Yemen strike ...
This guy was guilty, and he got what he deserved. The same for the rest of those targeted.
As for innocents, if you are hanging out with people like this, chances are you are not very innocent at all.
I think if we want to be "legal" than this is all we need to look at
"performing a "continuous combat function." Now I personally would say that we are at war with his organization, by that simple definition he is in the act of a continuous combat function
Aside from the fact that we are finally able to take out the bad guys without killing the innocent people, I just do not understand the writings of so many people on this site I mean hell, if you are going to complain about targeted killings, than screw it, might as well get back to clusterbombing and napalming right? than at least we know it was legal, even in innocent people have to die right?
We do everything possibe NOT TO.
LEGAL?
They attacked the Pentagon, making war upon us.
OF COURSE IT'S LEGAL!
It's also moral & ethical, until such time as it is used for some other purpose.
Read and repeat.
===========
In the 1950's, Europeans laughed at and ridiculed America's near total rejection of communism.
The same European attitude is now apparent toward our war against militant Islamism.
And this will end the same as the last time, with militant Islamism on the ash heap of burnt out ideologies with communism.
Global support? You jest.
==============
"...to advance a murderous ideology" would be more accurate, and more dangerous.
"Agenda" is a weasel word. It avoids the need to acknowledge that Awlaki and all Muslim terrorists subscribe to a single ideology--Islamism.
It is my belief that we are participants in a global war powered by two conflicting ideologies:
1. Those who work toward the goal of the eventual political dominance of Islam through violent and non violent means-Islamists
2. Those who oppose Islamism and believe in the defense of liberal democracy--by violent and non violent means--against Islamists.
There are Muslims fighting for both sides in this war.
Viewed in this context, the killing of Awlaki, bin Laden and others is as legal as any wartime killing.
The confusion arises out of our decision not to accurately name our enemy in this war.
Are these flights occuring with the knowledge and permission of the countries involved?
If not, a deliberate military violation of another country's airspace is, I suspect, something which could be considered an act of war.
In Pakistan, no. Neither side wants to admit it, but a de facto state of war exists between Pakistan and the US, in my opinion.
In order for a country's sovereignty to be honored by other countries, it must demonstrate the ability to govern its citizens. That is, the country has to be competent enough to stop its citizens from committing acts of war in other countries.
The incompetent country is a failed state and has no rights of sovereignty. States suffering attacks from the citizens of failed states have the right to defend themselves as they wish.
Bottom line: If Muslim countries cannot control their terrorist citizens, we will.