Humanitarians differ with the government on the policy regarding targeted killings. Their argument is that it is an option which is repugnant to the principle of justice and morality. The right to life is a universal declaration which was consented to by all member states of the UN during its inception after the Second World War. Therefore the United States, they argue should be bound by its commitment to preserving human rights in the world by abandoning the strategy of targeted killings of suspected high profile members of terrorists organizations. It is true that the United States should champion the adoption of human rights globally. However, during times of conflict, human rights are limited, suspended and in some cases their breach’s justifiable. Self-defense is an example of a situation where the breach of right to life is justifiable. The United States is well within its rights to use reasonable force to protect the security of its citizens or its allies. Targeted killings are lawful if they adhere to procedures and limitations which have been put when determining when resorting to it.
It is an uncomfortable decision to make when deciding to eliminate a human being. As John Brenan put it “War makes us rethink our personal beliefs and examine our conviction”. He states that every government official has to stand the test of a burning conscience. He adds, “Killing another human being is awful and so are the deaths of innocent civilians and that’s why we despise war.”Human rights activists should realize that the targeted killings are not decided in a night. It takes numerous consultations, debates and study by several government organs before the life of an individual can be snuffed. Targeted killings are not assassinations because there are no impure goals to be achieved when killing the leader of a terrorist organization and neither is there a hint of retribution for past terrorist acts. Targeted killings are executed upon solid principles among them being transparency. The executive arm of the government consults each other and at times, congress is involved and hence targeted killing achieve an element of legality when these processes are put in motion.
The legal integrity of targeted killings is verifiable. Every state is justified to use just and reasonable force to protect itself from any harm that may be occasioned it. An often quoted instance is the killing of Admiral Yamamoto during the Second World War by the U.S military. The killing was justified because the admiral was among the top ranking officers in the Japan army who was suspected of calculating an imminent attack on the U.S. Capturing such high value targets would seem a better option than if targeted killings are about eliminating individuals who pose an imminent threat to the U.S. The strategy has worked before. In the past, enemy combatants who were captured were taken to U.S military camps and pressed for information which when released, ultimately aided the U.S to achieve its goal of countering terrorist action. However, there were moral and ethical questions rose about the manner in which the prisoners of war were probed for information. Some had their families threatened and others gave in due to the pain of torture inflicted upon them. At the moment, such ethical questions are few to almost none. Torture was outlawed and only methods of questioning which were approved by the president and the congress are in effect. It is encouraging to know that these ethical methods have yielded results.
However, despite the streamlined mechanisms of interrogation, capture of enemy combatants is at times difficult, costly and risky. The problem of time also has to be computed among the disadvantages of using the ‘capture principle’. If an enemy combatant is in the process of executing a terrorist activity, there is no time for negotiating and dispatching soldiers to find means of bringing the person to justice alive. This is why targeted killings are preferable. The threat of immediate risk requires a fast solution. With the advent of technology, use of remote controlled planes called drones has proved effective. They are fast; they are accurate and safe because no soldier is put at risk
The United States is justified to carry out targeted killings and has an accurate means of carrying it out which fits the parameters of reasonable and just force. However, before a killing can be carried out, mountains of documents have to be passed between the government agencies concerned. The process has been outlined by several government officials in their lectures and speeches and information regarding how targeted killings are arrived at can be found in the public domain. This transparency lends credibility to targeted killings as an option during combat.
The framework for choosing targeted killings is indeed strict and rigorous. It is an almost impermeable sieve. The high bar was set by the Obama administration that is committed to principled engagement during diplomacy and implementing the values of the American people. In the first instance, targeted killings are a means to achieve success during conflict. It must carry out during conflict and the targeted person must fall within the definition of an enemy combatant. The threshold for conflict is an easy test. It must be a time of intense exchange of hostilities between two parties. The war between the U.S and Al Qaeda falls within the definition of a conflict because of the history of enmity between the two parties The U.S was able to identify its threat as early as 1994 and had numerous altercations with the enemy, Al Qaeda over the years. After the 1998 American Embassy bombings in East Africa, the U.S retaliated by bombing Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghan and the Al Qaeda responded by further destruction in 2001. This pattern of hostilities fits the description of conflict as required by international law.
The other factor which must be satisfied before the option of targeted killing can be sanctioned is that the targeted person must be an enemy combatant. The best definition for enemy combatant was supplied by Justice O’Connor in 2004 as “one who takes up arms in a theater of war” This distinguishes innocent ‘aiders and abettors’ such as unwitting financiers and persons whose professional interests rely on the concealing of information of terrorists such as journalists. Once the two requirements have been satisfied, the next part is to show that the enemy combatant is in the main belligerent group e.g. Al Qaeda or is in a co belligerent group, for instance, a group which fights alongside Al Qaeda.
The next phase would be negotiations on whether the target is worth eliminating and when the target should be eliminated. Enemy combatant groups often range in the thousands. Sanctioning the deaths of the thousands is not practical and is very costly. The target should be a high ranking official or a member with specialized information which is being leveraged for terrorist purposes. In addition, they must be involved in an ongoing threat or a threat which is imminent. This satisfies the legal requirement of the person having a military value. Second, is the principle of definition. The executors of the targeted killing must be confident that the casualties will only be the enemy combatant and at worst, other enemy combatants too. The identity of the enemy combatant has to be verified and the position accurate. And lastly, proportionality is a condition. Collateral damage must not exceed the military advantage sought. In addition, the weapons used should not inflict unnecessary harm. This eliminates the possibility of weapons such as gas or atomic bombs which will leave harmful side effects on the location of the targeted killing.
As seen, the laid down procedures conform to the legal standards set down are meant to ensure that dignity and accuracy is maintained. It is highly unlikely that an innocent civilian will become the target of a targeted killing and neither will the country find itself in a fix resource wise because targeted killing are accurate to the last detail. The advantage of targeted killings is that in addition to eliminating an immediate threat, the terrorist organization is likely to be disillusioned by the vacuum in power that has been occasioned. For example, among the documents found in Osama bin Laden’s den was a memoir in which he expressed his sadness at the fact that several Al Qaeda leaders were being wiped off leaving a generation of leaders he had no faith in when it came to leadership.
There are instances where the targeted individual is a United States citizen. This provides a confounding situation because the United States government is supposed to ensure that the rights of its citizens are not infringed on without due process. However, in the event that the individual is involved in an imminent threat, action must be taken fast. The United States citizen is often held to the same standards as any other terrorist and their elimination is the same as what would have been done to a foreigner involved in terrorist activity. The due process is not a strict bar but takes into consideration the complexities of a situation. In the event that time is of essence, the individual is prime for elimination where warnings have been sent to him, offers to surrender, and offers of amnesty, among others and yet each goes unheeded. There are several arguments that the elimination of a U.S citizen must be sanctioned by a court. It holds merit in a way in that it is only a court of law which can issue a declaration allowing the rights of a citizen to be limited or totally withdrawn. However, the challenge is that the case of a targeted killing is a decision which lies squarely within the workings of the executive. The requirement that due processes should be followed refers to standard procedures and protocols which have already been set down after assent from congress of any other body delegated by law, the responsibility of making protocols. Several scholars assert that in the event of a targeted killing which affects a U.S citizen, the state must assure the nation that in the event that infringing on the personal rights of a citizen is an option, all considerations taken to the matter shall involve utmost attention and consideration towards protection their rights before any extreme decision is made
However, targeted killings, even after its legal framework has been set forth and approved, does not offer a lasting solution. Elimination a top official may only disillusion the terrorist organization for a while but ultimately, the threat is not stamped out completely. The state should be aspiring to wards finding long lasting and effective solution towards terrorism.
Second, targeted killings will only breed a similar action on the side of the terrorists. It is likely that their strategy will be enhanced to rhyme with the fighting tactics of the U.S military in order to equal the chances of victory or losing the conflict. In the past, the Al Qaeda has used bombs in retaliation to bombing of their hideouts and they have taken hostages in the event of capture of their members
In the event of war on a traditional battlefield, the process of arriving at the option of targeted killing is reduced to simply an option of self-defense. The killing of a high ranking individual is allowed by law here and this provision provides a loophole for targeted killings in the event they do not fully meet the threshold required yet is deemed necessary. Lastly, human rights, ideally, should not be limited and every thought should be put into implementing them. The U.S is committed to holding itself to a different standard than the terrorists and hence, should find alternative means to ending combat then involving blood. War, sadly, involves innocent civilians as casualties and so do targeted killings. They are not 100% percent accurate and in many cases involve the death of civilians who are not combatants.
In conclusion, targeted killings are a bitter pill to swallow for government officials but there is some relief in the fact that the law has recognized its necessity and has provisions for carrying them out. Until better alternatives are found to handle belligerent combatants, targeted killings remain a viable option in the protection of citizens’ security which is a top priority for the U.S government.
References
Dinstein, Y. (2004). The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. London: Cambridge University Press.
Dinstein, Y. (2005). War, Agression, Self Defence. London: Cambrodge University Press.
O'Connel, E. M. (2009). Combatants and the Combat Zone. University of Richmond Law Review, 43.
Raffo, V., Sriram, C., Spiro, P., & Biersteker, T. (2012). International Law and International Politics - Old Divides and New Developments. International Law and International Relations: Bridging Theory and Practise, 1(1), 1-24.
Rourke, J. T. (2011). You Decide! 2012: Current Debates in American Politics. New York: Prentice Hall.
Woll, P. (2010). American government: readings and cases. New York: Pearson Longman.
