Targeted killing

What is Targeted Killing and Its Controversial History?

Targeted killing, a term that has gained notoriety in recent decades, refers to the deliberate assassination of individuals outside judicial procedures or battlefields. This practice has been employed by governments around the world for various reasons, often justified under the guise of self-defense against terrorists or combatants engaged in asymmetrical warfare.

Historically, Western thinking has considered assassination illegal statecraft. However, since the late 20th century, its legality has been hotly debated within and between nations. Some argue that targeted killings are legitimate acts of self-defense; others view them as extrajudicial and potentially illegal under both US and international law.

Targeted killings have a long and controversial history, with instances recorded in various countries including Kenya, Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Haiti, and the United States. The use of targeted killings expanded significantly during the George W. Bush administration’s War on Terror, with notable examples such as the killing of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

During the 1980s, death squads employed targeted killings in several countries. The U.S.-backed Operation Condor campaign involved assassination of political opponents and dissidents in Latin American right-wing dictatorships. Americas Watch and other rights groups reported targeted killings of civilians by the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in the late 1980s, while politically motivated targeted killings were also recorded in Haiti and Colombia during the same period.

The United States has a history of targeted killing, including Operation Vengeance during World War II, the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War, and the use of drone strikes since the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. The US government justifies drone strikes as an essential part of its counter-terrorism strategy under a war paradigm.

Legal Justifications and Criticisms

The legality of targeted killings is a contentious issue, with critics arguing that they are extrajudicial and may be illegal under both US and international law. In early 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first US citizen to be approved for targeted killing by the CIA, and he was killed in a drone strike in September 2011.

Reports have shown that the majority of people killed in US drone strikes are unidentified foot soldiers rather than mid- to top-tier organizers or leaders. The Intercept reported that between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people in northeastern Afghanistan. Of those targeted by US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen:

• 35 were intended targets
• Nearly 90% of people killed (874) in Pakistan’s drone strikes were not intended targets
• Total civilians killed: 158–965 in Pakistan and 116–225 in Yemen
• Total militantly killed: 2,000 to 3,500 in Pakistan and 846–1,758 in Yemen
• Al-Qaeda leaders killed: 57 in the Arabian Peninsula and 81 in Pakistan

The US government justifications for drone strikes include:

• Domestic law empowers President to protect nation from imminent threats
• Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes ‘all necessary and appropriate force’
• International law permits use of lethal force against enemies outside active battlefield, with consent or unable/unwilling to act

US administration positions on combat drones include:

• Uses remotely piloted aircraft to kill members of al-Qaeda
• Justified under both domestic and international law
• Allows for targeted killings based on intelligence ‘signatures’

International Perspectives and Legal Frameworks

The legality of targeted killings is further complicated by the involvement of other countries. For instance, Israel has used targeted killings more than any other country in the West, endangering civilian lives. Israeli officials initially accepted responsibility for only some of the killings and termed it ‘liquidations policy.’ Palestinians called it ‘state terrorism.’

In Europe, targeted killings have been reported in Bosnia and Serbia during the Bosnian War and Kosovo War. The Russian government has also employed targeted killings, including the assassination of Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev on 21 April 1996.

During the First Chechen War, Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev was killed by two laser-guided missiles when he was using a satellite phone. On 20 March 2002, Ibn al-Khattab, who led his militia against Russian forces in Chechnya during the First and Second Chechen War, was killed when a Dagestani messenger hired by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) gave him a poisoned letter.

On 13 February 2004, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, who served as acting president of the breakaway Chechen Republic of Ichkeria between 1996 and 1997, was killed when a bomb ripped through his SUV in Doha. On 30 June 2004, both Russians were sentenced to life imprisonment; passing the sentence, the judge stated that they had acted on orders from the Russian leadership.

On 10 July 2006 Shamil Basayev, a Chechen militant leader who was alleged to be responsible for numerous guerrilla attacks on security forces in and around Chechnya and the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis, was killed by an explosion near the border of North Ossetia in the village of Ali-Yurt, Ingushetia.

Targeted killings have been used in various forms, including poisonings. Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium, which the European Court of Human Rights ruled Russia was responsible for. US and UK intelligence agents reportedly say they believe Russian assassins and possibly the Russian government could have been behind at least fourteen targeted killings on British soil.

Ukrainian authorities have blamed Russian security services for multiple killings in Ukraine, including the assassination of Colonel Maksym Shapoval.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The legality of targeted killings is debated, with exceptions including self-defense and obtaining consent from the host state. Targeted killing operations raise questions about the legal basis for their application, due process guarantees, and the potential for extrajudicial executions and war crimes.

Some argue that targeted killings are a means of addressing terrorism, while others consider them an illegal form of extrajudicial killing that leads to more violence. George Bisharat disputes the legality of assassination. Gary Solis argues that assassinations and targeted killings are different under specific conditions, including an ongoing military conflict and a decision made by senior leaders.

Abraham Sofaer believes targeted killing is sometimes necessary for self-defense, citing international law exceptions. Matthew J. Morgan emphasizes a distinction between assassination (illegal killing) and targeted killing (legitimate action). Amos Guiora and Steve David agree that targeted killing is not the same as assassination. William Banks and Peter Raven-Hansen describe targeted killing of terrorists as permissible under certain circumstances.

Notably, Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale write: ‘Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination.’ American defense department analyst and professor Thomas Hunter has defined targeted killing as the ‘premeditated, preemptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present or future threat to the safety and security of a state through the affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals.’

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) stated that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons deemed responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Controversies and Criticisms

Political scientists Frank Sauer and Niklas Schörnig have described targeted killing as a violation of international law and domestic laws. The American Civil Liberties Union maintains that targeting people without charge or trial violates due process and international law. It’s official policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders ‘targeted killing’. In 2013, UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson stated US drone strikes may have violated international humanitarian law.

Additional concerns include:

• US drone strikes require host country consent to be effective
• Host countries and non-host partners objecting to the US drone policy inhibit its effectiveness
• The US should limit targeted killings to specific terrorists with transnational ambitions
• Congressional oversight and stricter regulation of armed drones are recommended
• Transparency on non-battlefield drone strikes is lacking
• Targeted killings have six potential hazards: Hydra effect, driving leaders into hiding, making intelligence gathering difficult

US drone policy lacks transparency, may share the same fate as Bush-era enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretapping. Third, ‘the political message flowing from the use of targeted killings may be harmful to the attacking country’s interest, as it emphasizes the disparity in power between the parties and reinforces popular support for the terrorists, who are seen as a David fighting Goliath.

Fourth, when conducted in a foreign country, drone strikes run the risk of heightening tensions between the targeting government and the government in whose territory the operation is conducted.

Fifth, targeted killings threaten criticism from local domestic constituencies against the government allowing strikes within their country.

Finally, there is a danger of over-using targeted killings, both within and outside the war of terrorism.

Conclusion

The debate around targeted killing remains contentious. While some view it as an essential tool in counter-terrorism efforts, others argue that its extrajudicial nature makes it illegal under international law. The ethical implications and potential for harm are significant, making a balanced approach crucial. As the world grapples with these complex issues, the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal frameworks becomes increasingly important.