US's drone kills are unquestionable

Πηγή: The Canbera Times
Oct 5 2011


The United States Government and the American public do not seem, as a general rule, to dwell at length on the finer legal or moral points of using drones or missile attacks to kill suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban militants.

In August 1998, president Bill Clinton authorised the launch of 66 cruise missiles in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Osama bin Laden as he visited al-Qaeda training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, saying later that he regretted the failure. After 9/11, the passage of the authorisation to use the Military Force Act cleared the way for a more intensive program of targeting killings by empowering the president to use ''all necessary and appropriate force'' against nations, organisations or persons who planned, committed or aided the terrorist attacks. Since then, US drone strikes have killed twice as many suspected terrorists as were ever imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, as well as an unknown number of innocent bystanders. That these attacks may violate international humanitarian law, and possibly constitute war crimes (the view of the United Nations rapporteur for summary executions and extrajudicial killings) has aroused no great interest in the US. But last Friday's successful attack on senior al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen has provoked an unusual bout of introspection among Americans - not because of doubts about his ability to threaten or harm US interests but because he was a dual US-Yemeni citizen.

Under the fifth amendment, all US citizens are guaranteed the right to a fair trial, wherever they are in the world, and some human rights groups have asserted that not only was al-Awlaki denied this right but that there was no prior judicial review of the decision to order his death. Whether such requirements apply in the case of an American engaged in terrorist activity is probably debatable, but the White House, anticipating objections, apparently used a secret memorandum issued by the Justice Department as authorisation for the killing. The exact nature of the authorisation, however, remains unclear, with the White House and Justice Department refusing to answer queries about how it satisfied the fifth amendment.

The legal position of the White House - as it was during President George W.Bush's term - is that under the authority provided by Congress it is entirely lawful for the US to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality. Much of the world considers this to be an unsatisfactory legal position. Moreover, the attacks carried out under this unilateralist and one-sided policy have substantially undermined international support for the US's war on terrorism. Only now, ironically enough, are Americans debating the unintended consequences of drone attacks.