The White House reportedly is developing rules for when to kill
terrorists around the world. The world may never see them, given the
Obama administration’s inclination toward unnecessary secrecy regarding
its national security policy. But the effort itself is a first step
toward acknowledging that when the government kills people away from the
battlefield, it must stay within formal guidelines based on the rule of
law — especially when the life of an American citizen is at stake.
For eight years, the United States has conducted but never formally acknowledged a program to kill terrorists
associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban away from the battlefield in
Afghanistan. Using drones, the Central Intelligence Agency has made 320 strikes in Pakistan since 2004,
killing 2,560 or more people, including at least 139 civilians,
according to the Long War Journal, a Web site that tracks
counterterrorism operations. Another 55 strikes took place in Yemen.
Administration officials have never explained in any detail how these
targets are chosen. Are they killing people only associated with groups
that participated in the Sept. 11 attacks, the limitation imposed by
Congress when it authorized military force in 2001? Or are they free to
remove any threat to the United States they perceive?
Officials insist they go after only actual belligerents covered in the 2001 legislation, but the public and the world have no way of knowing whether these decisions are made ad hoc, or how they would be interpreted by future presidents.
Officials insist they go after only actual belligerents covered in the 2001 legislation, but the public and the world have no way of knowing whether these decisions are made ad hoc, or how they would be interpreted by future presidents.
Before the election, when it looked as if Mitt Romney had a chance of
winning the White House, administration officials began codifying these
rules, according to a recent report in The Times
by Scott Shane. Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program
to his successor, one official told Mr. Shane anonymously.
That impulse was right, even if the reasoning was wrong. The rules for
killing shouldn’t be amorphous simply because Mr. Romney might have
taken over; they need to be rigorous and formalized for Mr. Obama, too.
If he sets proper boundaries, it would create a precedent that his
successors would have to justify breaking.
Providing a wide latitude to kill would be worse than pointless. Any
rules should specify that no one can be killed unless actively planning
or participating in terror, or helping lead Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Raising money for terror groups, or making tapes urging others to kill,
does not justify assassination, and neither does a threat or a revolt
against another government. Killing should be a last resort, when it can
be demonstrated that capture is impossible. Standards for preventing
the killing of innocents who might be nearby should be detailed and
thorough. (Most of these rules are already part of international law.)
Standard police methods should be used on American soil. And if an
American citizen operating abroad is targeted, due process is required. We have urged the formation of a special court,
like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that could review the
evidence regarding a target before that person is placed on a kill
list. Otherwise, the government should establish a clear procedure so
officials outside of the administration are allowed to pass judgment on
assassination decisions.
CONTINUE Reading FULL Story HERE...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/opinion/rules-for-targeted-killing.html?hp
