By Dr. Elena Mastors
Vice President & Dean of the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University
Rhea Siers
Faculty Member in the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University
In November 2002, a group of six men, all suspected al-Qaida members, were traveling by car in a remote location in Yemen. They were all killed by a U.S. operated Predator drone-launched Hellfire missile strike. These types of attacks were coined, “targeted killings.” Around the world, scholars, political pundits, and policymakers all have views on whether or not targeted killings should be allowed. In the United States, the Bush and Obama administrations have both defended targeted killings.
Publicized at the time of the November 2002 targeted killing, was that one of the suspected terrorists traveling in the car in Yemen was Kamal Derwish, an American citizen. In similar drone attacks, Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki were killed in Yemen in 2011. All three were American citizens.
This issue has recently come to light with the Obama administration’s release of a 16-page legal memorandum providing justification and the process for approval of targeting killings. There are essentially three conditions for the “use of lethal force in a foreign country.”]:
- The determination by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S.” that the “targeted individual poses an imminent threat to the U.S.”
- Capture is not feasible and if such an operation poses “undue risk” to U.S. forces.
- The use of force is “consistent” with “fundamental principals” of international law regarding the use of force.
These standards have clearly governed the drone program for some time; both Attorney General Eric Holder and Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to the President John Brennan previously discussed these criteria publicly. Much of the debate focuses on two issues.
- How does one truly define an “imminent” threat to the U.S.?
- Whether the information (often intelligence) provided to the decision maker is sufficient and convincing enough to make the call to kill an adversary—especially one with U.S. citizenship.
The American Civil Liberties Union challenged this “Star Chamber” decision making, secretive decisions without judicial oversight, stating that it is unconstitutional and allows for “extrajudicial killings of an American citizen” without due process of law.
The use of targeting killings has global implications given that the people targeted, Americans or otherwise, are in foreign countries. This is especially controversial given that U.S. policy is not perceived as favorable worldwide while drone use only shows signs of escalating in foreign skies.
About the Authors:
Dr. Elena Mastors is currently Vice President and Dean of the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University. Dr. Mastors is an expert on political psychology as it pertains to conflict, terrorism and political leadership. She writes frequently on understanding leaders and group dynamics from a political-psychological perspective. She is also a frequent lecturer on the important role of individuals and group dynamics in armed groups. Most recently, she conducted field work in Northern Ireland.
Rhea Siers recently retired as a member of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service after over thirty years at the National Security Agency (NSA). Ms. Siers served in a variety of operational, legal, and policy positions dealing with some of the most critical issues facing the US Intelligence Community including cyber operations, information sharing, sharing, counterterrorism and counterintelligence. She received her B.A. in Political Science from Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, an MSc in International Relations and Middle East Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science, a J.D. from the Washington College of Law, American University, and an MIPP in Transnational Security Issues from the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.
Comments are closed.