United States' drone wars face a possible reckoning a decade after the al-Awlaki assassination
In late September 2011, a drone strike in Yemen resulted in the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born cleric accused of being an operational leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This event, while hailed by President Obama as a counterterrorism success, has since been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about the legality, transparency, and effectiveness of such targeted killings.
The killing of al-Awlaki was the culmination of a multiyear operation involving the CIA, Joint Special Operations Command, and allied foreign intelligence services. However, the public case for the Obama administration's decision to target al-Awlaki rested on secret intelligence, and the administration never charged him with a crime or presented concrete evidence of his guilt.
The drone strike on al-Awlaki presents a constitutional gray area at the intersection of the executive, secret intelligence, and the rule of law. The targeted killing of an American citizen, such as al-Awlaki, remains an unsettled question of constitutional law, as there is no judicial precedent for such actions.
The strike also reversed historical processes by having the executive branch play the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, with the judiciary completely absent from the proceedings. This raises concerns about due process and the potential for egregious errors, as demonstrated by the incident where a drone strike resulted in the death of ten civilians, including seven children, despite the US unit following the targeted vehicle for eight hours.
The Obama administration argued that due process was not the same as judicial process and presented a test to justify the targeted killing of an American citizen. However, the lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process for such strikes has led to ongoing debate among national security professionals and academics.
Moreover, the drone strike on al-Awlaki has set a precedent that the United States needs to carefully reconsider. As al-Awlaki's case undermines US credibility in reproaching and punishing other states for extrajudicially targeting their citizens abroad, it could potentially encourage countries like Russia and China to adopt similar policies.
The recent strike in Afghanistan by the Biden administration, targeting a suspected Islamic State militant following a suicide bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, seems to align with policies adopted during Obama's second term. However, the Biden administration's drone policy, so far, requires more interagency coordination, communication, and legal deliberation.
While studies have arrived at divergent conclusions about how targeted killings, particularly those that target an organization's leadership, impact group durability, there is concern that such attacks could lead to increased indiscriminate violence by militant groups. There is also a growing concern about the potential use of drones by militant groups like the Islamic State and Hezbollah, with some fearing that the next 9/11 could involve drones.
In conclusion, the drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki has raised significant questions about the legality, effectiveness, and ethics of targeted killings. As the use of drones continues to evolve, it is crucial for governments to carefully consider the implications of such actions and strive for greater transparency and adherence to the rule of law.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
