FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Hybrid Rules of Drone Warfare

by JOANNE MARINER

I don’t think there’s any question but that we are at war,” said then-Attorney-General designate Eric Holder at his confirmation hearingin January 2009, agreeing with Senator Lindsey Graham that the United States and Al Qaeda were embroiled in a global armed conflict.

Three years later, with Guantanamo still open, military commission proceedings moving ahead, and terrorist suspects being killed on a routine basis by U.S. drones, Holder returned to the topic.  In a speech given earlier this month at Northwestern Law School, he reaffirmed his view that the country is at war with Al Qaeda, while acknowledging that it is not a conventional war.

Holder’s speech, though short of a detailed legal justification of the U.S. practice of carrying out targeted killings of suspected terrorists, was the most thorough analysis of these issues that the Obama Administration has provided to date.  It built upon ideas previously expressed by State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh, in a March 2010 speech before the American Society of International Law, and Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, in February 2012 speech at Yale Law School.

Coming five months after a missile fired from a U.S. drone killed American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, Holder’s speech specifically focused on the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.  Holder did not mention al-Awlaki by name, but he took pains to emphasize that “citizenship alone” does not protect terrorist suspects from targeting.

Misstating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects “persons,” not just citizens, he made prominent reference to the Constitution’s requirement of due process of law.  Citizens, he explained, could be targeted and killed by the U.S. government as long as certain procedural guarantees were respected.

The guarantees Holder outlined do not involve a trial, nor even any court proceedings. “‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same,” he asserted, “particularly when it comes to national security.”

The Israeli Model

The United States is not the only country that claims to be at war with a terrorist enemy, nor is it the only country that has crafted a set of extrajudicial procedures for carrying out targeted killings.  Israel, which targets militants in Gaza on a regular basis, makes similar decisions about who to kill, in what circumstances, and on the basis of what evidence.

Years ago, U.S. officials were critical of Israel’s targeted killing policy; now, it seems, the U.S. is learning from the Israeli model.

Notably, the rules on targeting that Holder set out in his speech at Northwestern are quite similar to rules outlined by the Israeli Supreme Court in a landmark 2006 case.  That case, brought by a non-governmental organization opposed to the country’s targeted killing program, led the Israeli Supreme Court to uphold the practice of targeted killings, but also to impose substantive and procedural safeguards.

A comparison of the U.S. and Israeli frameworks is instructive.

Both the U.S. and Israel require that the targeted person pose a threat, although the contours of that threat differ.  Holder said a killing could be justified if the target was a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and was actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, and presented an “imminent threat” of violent attack against the United States.

The Israeli Supreme Court was somewhat less demanding in its rhetoric, not imposing a requirement of imminence or immediacy.  It did, however, require that targeted killings be attempted only when solid information indicated that the target was taking a direct part in hostilities (including by planning terrorist attacks), and only for such time as the person’s involvement continued.

Given the circumstances of the al-Awlaki killing, in which the concept of an imminent threat seems to have been stretched, the two standards may be functionally equivalent.

The second requirement that both the U.S. and Israel impose is that the arrest of the target be risky or unfeasible.

Third, both the U.S. and Israel require that basic law-of-war rules of proportionality be respected: that an attack not be undertaken if the likely harm to innocent civilians outweighs the military advantage gained by the killing of the target.

Finally, the Israeli Supreme Court imposed an additional requirement: that a thorough and independent investigation be carried out in the wake of every such attack. Holder did not mention a similar rule, though he did emphasize the importance of congressional oversight.

Toward a Hybrid Approach

Both Israel and the U.S. are stretching the laws of war to cover counterterrorist operations that are unlike traditional armed conflict.  In doing so, however, they are crafting a hybrid approach to wartime rules, importing restrictions more typical of human rights or domestic legal frameworks.

Under the traditional laws of war, for example, there is no need to consider whether it would be risky or unfeasible to arrest a suspect before trying to kill him.

The end result, it seems, may be a hybrid approach that takes military targeting powers and subjects them to more stringent civilian notions of due process.  We have seen a similar approach to detention powers since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

When much is at stake, some amount of process is better than nothing.  Yet it is unclear whether, in real terms, these procedural changes have meaningfully improved substantive outcomes.

Joanne Mariner is the director of Hunter College’s Human Rights Program.  She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law. 

This column previously appeared on Justia’s Verdict.

 

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull, 500 Years of Trauma
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Gordon Smith
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
stclair
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered, Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail