Archive | Targeted Killing

My written testimony on the use of drones for targeted killing in the War on Terror submitted for yesterday’s hearing the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights is now available here. You can view the video of the oral testimony (both mine and the other witnesses) here. I will post links to the other witnesses’ written testimony when and if they become available.

UPDATE: The written testimony of all the witnesses is now available here (see list of their names off to the right).

UPDATE #2: A written statement submitted for the hearing by Senator Rand Paul is available here. [...]

A video of my and other witnesses’ oral testimony on the use of drones for targeted killing in the War Terror, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights is now available here (just click on “webcast”). It was interesting for me to see that there was a broad consensus among the academic and ex-military witnesses on two key points: that the use of drones for targeted killing of terrorists is not inherently illegal or immoral, and that we need stronger safeguards to ensure that we are limiting drone strikes to legitimate military targets. It seems to me that many of the senators who asked questions – both Democrats and Republicans – were also sympathetic on these points. Whether this will lead to appropriate reforms remains to be seen.

I will try to post my written testimony by tomorrow.

UPDATE: You can also watch the hearing at the C-SPAN site here, though there are a few technical problems in that video that I noticed.

UPDATE #2: I do want to clarify one unfortunately ambiguous aspect of an answer I gave to a question by Sen. Michael Lee around 2:07:00 of the video at the Subcommittee website. I mentioned there that the Israeli government government has a judicial review mechanism for considering the legality of targeted killing decisions. I should have made clear that the Israeli system, as outlined in the Israeli High Court of Justice’s 2006 decision on the legality of targeted killing, establishes after-the-fact judicial review rather than judicial review in advance, of the kind contemplated in proposals to create a FISA-like court to review targeting decisions aimed at US citizens in advance. Both Sen. Lee’s question and the part of my answer that mentions Israel were ambiguous on the issue of [...]

The Obama administration memo on targeted killing has drawn an enormous amount of commentary, much of it hostile. To my mind, a lot of the criticism is overblown because it doesn’t give enough consideration to the fact that the memo’s rationale for targeted killing is strictly limited to American citizens who are “senior operational leader[s] of al-Qa’ida or an associated force.” On the other hand, there is a very troubling issue that the memo does not address: Who decides whether a potential target qualifies as a senior operational terrorist leader, and how much evidence does he need to have?

I. Al Qaeda Leaders Are Legitimate Targets.

Many critics, such as Gerard Magliocca and Conor Friedersdorf focus on the weaknesses of the memo’s three additional requirements for a targeted killing of a US citizen: that “(1) an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, (2) capture is infeasible and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible, and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.” Gerard, for example, argues that “[t]he White Paper says that a citizen is eligible for death-by-drone when ‘an informed, high-level, official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.’ In my opinion, this threshold is too low.” But the “imminent threat” test applies only to people located outside the United States who are “senior operational leaders of al-Qa’ida or an associated force,” not to just anyone who “an informed…official” believes to be a threat. In other words, the requirements that the target pose an “imminent threat” and cannot be captured are in addition to [...]

Co-Conspirator Jonathan mentioned posts at Lawfare blog discussing the Drone White Paper that has been much in the news along with notice that the Awlaki OLC memo will be shared with Congress, and all  with the Brennan hearings for CIA director.  I have added a post at Lawfare that Volokh readers might find interesting; it points out that one of the much commented issues of the White Paper, the question of “imminence” as a condition of attacking in self-defense, actually has a long history in US law and policy.  At least since the early 1980s, the US has embraced a standard of “active self-defense,” as I note at Lawfare.  Here, for example, is a statement of it in 1989 by then-Department of State Legal Adviser Abraham Sofaer, in an interagency cleared speech, and which references statements by then-Secretary of State George Shultz:

Some States, such as Lebanon, are simply unable to exercise authority over terrorists, even if they were inclined to do so. The United States must be free to utilize force with sufficient flexibility to defend itself and its allies effectively against threats resulting from such breaches of international responsibility. As Secretary of State George P. Shultz predicted in 1984: “We can expect more terrorism directed at our strategic interests around the world in the years ahead. To combat it, we must be willing to use military force.” ….

In 1984 Secretary Shultz described this policy as an “active defense.” “From a practical standpoint,” he said, “a purely passive defense does not provide enough of a deterrent to terrorism and the states that sponsor it.” Later that year he described why an active defense was needed to deter:

“We must reach a consensus in this country that our responses should go beyond passive defense to consider means of active