Eleanor Finch
Targeted killings in peaceful countries are a highly controversial topic that has sparked debates about constitutionality, legality, and ethics. The United States, for example, has been accused of carrying out unlawful targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other countries, raising questions about the legality of such actions under both US constitutional law and international law. The US government's targeted killing program has been criticized for its lack of transparency and oversight, with secret processes determining who is placed on CIA and military kill lists. Beyond the US, other countries like Israel have also been involved in targeted killing operations, sparking debates about the legality and morality of such practices. Understanding the constitutional implications of targeted killings in peaceful countries requires examining specific cases, legal frameworks, and the complex interplay between domestic and international laws.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Countries that have carried out targeted killings | United States, Israel, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Russia, Turkey, United Kingdom |
| Countries targeted killings have been carried out in | Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen |
| Organizations that have litigated lawsuits against targeted killings | ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, American Civil Liberties Union |
| US government departments involved in targeted killings | CIA, Justice Department |
| US government branches that oversee the targeted killing program | Executive branch |
| US presidents whose administrations have carried out targeted killings | Barack Obama |
| People targeted by US targeted killing program | Anwar al-Awlaki |
| US government officials who have defended targeted killing programs | John O. Brennan |
| International laws that may be violated by targeted killings | United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, international human rights law |
| Constitutional rights that may be violated by targeted killings | Due process, right to a fair trial |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Lethal force outside of armed conflict zones
International humanitarian law and human rights law impose strict limitations on the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the US Constitution, and international law, lethal force outside of armed conflict zones is only permissible as a last resort against a specific and imminent threat of serious harm. The ACLU has litigated lawsuits and advocated for transparency and accountability regarding the US targeted killing program.
The notion of the US executing its citizens without a legal determination of guilt and through a secret bureaucratic process is considered repugnant to democratic values. The use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones sets a dangerous precedent, effectively turning the whole world into a war zone and potentially justifying similar actions by other countries.
In non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the application of lethal force becomes less clear. While intentional lethal force may be permissible to protect life from imminent threat, it should only be used when non-lethal alternatives are unavailable. Additionally, the use of lethal force must comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, ensuring that civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities are not targeted.
Successive US administrations have claimed the authority to use lethal force outside of areas of armed conflict, raising concerns about the erosion of human rights and the expansion of executive power. Senators Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy have urged the Biden administration to end war-based lethal force policies outside of armed conflict zones, improve transparency and accountability, and prevent civilian casualties.
Executive Branch: Roles and Responsibilities Explained
You may want to see also
US government's use of drones
The US government's use of drones has been a highly controversial topic, with concerns raised about the lack of transparency, oversight, and potential violations of constitutional rights and international law.
The US has carried out targeted killings using drones in several countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. These strikes have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of alleged "militants" and civilians. The US government's targeted killing program has been criticized for operating without sufficient oversight from outside the executive branch, with essential details, such as the criteria for placing individuals on CIA and military "kill lists," remaining secret. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to assess the legality and ethical implications of drone strikes.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations have actively litigated lawsuits and advocated for accountability and transparency in the US drone program. They argue that the program violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and the prohibition on the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones, except as a last resort against imminent threats. The ACLU has also highlighted the potential for abuse and the setting of a dangerous precedent, with other countries potentially justifying the use of drones against enemies within US borders.
While the US government justifies drone strikes as a necessary counterterrorism measure, the secrecy surrounding the program and the lack of public standards for targeted killings have raised concerns among civil liberties advocates. The use of drones for surveillance, both domestically and internationally, has also sparked debates about privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.
To address these concerns, some have proposed stricter regulations and oversight mechanisms for the use of drones, particularly regarding the criteria for targeted killings and the protection of privacy rights. The development of drone technology and its increasing accessibility emphasize the urgency of establishing clear guidelines to ensure that drone use aligns with constitutional and international legal obligations.
Executive Branch: Term Limits and Service Length Explained
You may want to see also
International humanitarian law
The applicability of IHL to targeted killings is complex and has been the subject of much debate. Targeted killings occur both within and outside of armed conflicts, and those targeted are often geographically far removed from hostilities and may not be directly participating in hostilities at the time they are targeted. In the context of the war on terror, targeted killings of suspected terrorists, including “unlawful combatants”, have become commonplace.
Some argue that targeted killings of those associated with terrorist organizations are lawful because the state is justified in using lethal force in self-defense. For example, the Obama administration argued that the United States is in an ongoing armed conflict with al Qaeda, and therefore has the authority to use lethal force against al Qaeda members and affiliates. However, this assumption that international humanitarian law always applies can undermine international legal protections and human rights law.
The lawfulness of a targeted killing depends on the specific context and the applicable law. In his book, "Targeted Killing in International Law," Nils Melzer examines the historical, legal, and moral dimensions of targeted killing, finding that Western support for targeted killing increased after September 11. He also discusses the shift in UK law enforcement's acceptance of a "shoot to kill" strategy after the attack, despite targeted killing previously being a criminal offense.
The US Constitution: A Founding Document's Name and Legacy
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution and individual rights
The US Constitution, written in 1787, is the fundamental law of the US federal system of government and the landmark document of the Western world. It defines the principal organs of government and their jurisdictions, as well as the basic rights of citizens. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were added in 1791 to limit the powers of the federal government and protect the rights of citizens, residents, and states.
The Bill of Rights guarantees civil rights and liberties to individuals, including freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government for the people or the states. The First Amendment, for example, prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion and protects the right to free speech. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes and searches and seizures without warrants. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for people accused of crimes, including the right to not be compelled to be a witness against themselves and the right to due process. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections for people accused of crimes, such as the right to a speedy and public trial and to be represented by a lawyer. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that the listing of specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.
Despite these protections, the US government has been accused of violating the Constitution and international law through its targeted killing program. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has litigated lawsuits and advocated for transparency and accountability regarding the program. The ACLU argues that the program operates without meaningful oversight outside the executive branch and that essential details, such as the criteria for placing individuals on "kill lists," remain secret. They contend that the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones, as well as the killing of US citizens without a legal determination of guilt, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and the prohibition on taking life without due process.
The US targeted killing program has resulted in the deaths of individuals in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Drone strikes, in particular, have been a controversial aspect of the program, with concerns raised about civilian casualties and the lack of transparency around the criteria for selecting targets. The US government has been criticized for its secrecy and lack of accountability, with calls for the release of information related to individual attacks and the legal justifications for targeted killings.
Exploring Philadelphia's National Constitution Center: A Visitor's Guide
You may want to see also
Accountability and transparency
The United States has been accused of carrying out unlawful targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other countries. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has litigated numerous lawsuits and advocated with Congress and the executive branch to push for accountability and transparency in these programs. The ACLU has criticised the US targeted killing policy for its lack of oversight outside the executive branch and the secrecy surrounding essential details, such as the criteria for placing individuals on kill lists.
International humanitarian law does not prohibit intelligence agencies from participating in combat operations during armed conflicts. However, parties to an armed conflict are obliged to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and provide redress for victims. The US government's routine refusal to confirm or deny the CIA's involvement in targeted killings has been criticised as a lack of transparency.
To ensure compliance with international law, the US government should conduct investigations of targeted killings where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, provide compensation to victims of unlawful attacks, and discipline or prosecute those responsible for illegal strikes. The government should also clarify the procedures in place to ensure that targeted killings comply with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, including measures to prevent casualties and provide independent public investigations of alleged violations.
The number of deaths resulting from US targeted killings is unclear due to a lack of transparency and independent verification. The New America Foundation estimated that US drone strikes in northern Pakistan between 2004 and 2011 killed between 1,680 and 2,634 alleged militants and civilians. US counterterrorism officials provided lower figures for Pakistan but did not include targeted killings before 2008 or those in other countries, making it difficult to determine the full extent of casualties.
Exploring Agency Affiliations: Cabinet Conundrum
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US targeted killing policy allows the US government to execute its own citizens anywhere in the world, without a legal determination of guilt and without firm and public standards.
The US targeted killing policy violates the constitutional guarantee of due process. It also violates international law, under which lethal force may be used outside of armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats when non-lethal means are not available.
The US government has defended the use of drones to kill selected members of Al-Qaeda from a domestic law and international law point of view. John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has stated that there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft or prohibits the use of lethal force against enemies outside of an active battlefield when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat.
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against another. However, there are two exceptions: (1) when the use of force is carried out with the consent of the host state; and (2) when the use of force is in self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action.
The ACLU has litigated numerous lawsuits and regularly advocates with Congress and the executive branch to press for accountability and transparency surrounding the US targeted killing program. They argue that the program operates without meaningful oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program, such as the criteria for placing individuals on CIA and military kill lists, remain secret.
