[As I wrote this, reports are out Samir Khan, a sort of Al Qaida propagandist, also an American citizen, was killed in that attack too. More on the "pro" side at various spots here.]
Drones were used pre-Obama and until now, the last American citizen killed by one was during the Bush years. Yes, drone use greatly increased in the last two years, a strategic choice to target actual terrorists (or those we think are), not a country that didn't invade us, and in a way that put a lot less of Americans in harms' way (or in a more indirect way than being shot at). The result are thousands of people killed, some fraction innocents, though what exactly that means is a matter of debate. This to me is ill advised, but again, cf. Iraq where hundreds of thousands were killed according to the Lancet study, tens of thousands even by Bush's own mouth.
Also, this is important, drone use is not inherently illegal. At least, that is the current understanding of international law. There are problems, especially if the CIA is involved, at least without better safeguards. There is also a question of locale -- it is quite different to use it in areas generally understood to be "war zones" (I use the quotes, since there is real debate over these issues) such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drones have an uncomfortable feel to some (killing by remote control), well grounded on some level, but is dropping bombs far above the ground truly different in kind? Howard Zinn and others didn't seem to think so when talking about WWII bombing raids. And, it targeted attacks actually lead to much less loss of life. The cost/benefit of easier warfare is hazy, granted, but the people not killed by better pinpoint accuracy is duly noted.
In 2001, Congress (yes, even Ron Paul) authorized military force against the forces (including individuals and groups, a controversial bit) that attacked us on 9/11. The open-ended nature of this authorization is troubling, and some clarification should be passed given changing times, but it leads me to be turned off when people claim use of drones against such forces is "assassination," a few even saying killing OBL is one such incident. As if killing General Rommel during WWII via a raid would be such. This aside from if it was a good idea. A strict reading of the law might question it, but it is a type of venial sin at worst. I talked about a speech on this issue here.
The federal courts, up to the Supreme Court, authorized use of military force against American citizens if they are "enemy combatants." This is after all what the Hamdi case was about. But, he was captured on the proverbial battlefield. Thus, when it was reported that Anwar-al-Awlaki, a bi-national, was targeted, his family tried to narrow things -- if an American citizen is involved, at least, the government cannot use military force against them outside of war zones. The family lost on standing issues, though one judge was wary about deciding the question at all. I find the family's claim reasonable, surely as a matter of policy, but the Obama Administration doesn't agree. Al Qaeda forces in Yemen are a legitimate target, even if an American citizen is involved. Such as the one just reportedly killed.
As noted, this apparently (you never know for sure) is only the second such citizen killed by drone in a decade. As with Troy Davis, is it really worth the trouble killing this guy? Going to a good international law blog, it's debatable. The question might be if he was in some "material" way connected to threats to the U.S. in the relevant way. This is an important question in the lower federal courts -- just strong must the connection be for the person to be an "enemy combatant," since you after all are saying you can be authorized to detain or even kill these people. There is confusion here -- some seem to think that they deserve full criminal trial rights. This might be ideal, but that isn't the rule. They are not being tried criminally, but in a military context. Some lower standard, but some standard all the same, is involved. And, when an American citizen is involved, who clearly has the right of protection from our government (see, e.g., The Slaughterhouse Cases), special care should be provided. I don't know if it was adequate done here legally. As policy, killing him was probably a mistake. For me at least.*
I might give a strict meaning to "enemy combatant," and in open-ended conflicts, Congress should not let some authorization of force a decade ago just linger on. It is true that Congress has to re-authorize funding every two years, but it is something of a joke to suggest this is a very serious examination of the legitimacy of the conflict. Still, killing American citizens, or particularly aliens, via on the ground attacks, dropping bombs from planes or by remote control in Afghanistan or Pakistan is "legal," if not a great idea. It is not "assassination" to do this. The means might be a problem, particularly if the means are done so secretly that it is unclear if the proper rules were followed. Once you get pass that, it gets closer. I think the speech referenced in general is reasonable, if too open-ended at some point. Where that point is past my pay grade, though I pretend to be able to say reasonable things about it. The killing here is rather close to the line, at least.
Congress should pass a new authorization or we should stop our roving military force. At the very least, if an American citizen is involved, family members (see the Hamdi case) should have standing to plead their cases. If they did, giving the state of the law in the federal circuit, he very well might have lost. This very well might have been unjust, but giving this guy any grounds of being some kind of martyr isn't grand either.
---
* Rhetoric aside, no one is being "summarily" killed here. There is a process involved in determining who is targeted, and the Obama Administration isn't claiming some open-ended power to kill anyone deemed a threat. So, some drug kingpin can't be killed by drone when criminal process isn't successful. I fully am aware of the limits to such "process" and particularly with American citizens are involved, some court review is appropriate, but as with "assassination," some care should be used when discussing what is going on here. If not, why worry about proportional use of force or anything, since it's all bad?
The Associated Press intelligence correspondent Kimberly Dozier was told by a U.S. government source that al-Awlaki was killed in a joint CIA-Joint Special Operations command (JSOC) operation using drones and jets, an AP colleague said.Some over the (RIP) Slate Fray were really on Obama for use of drones, even alleging "the left" gave him a pass on it vis-a-vis Bush. It got to be a bit annoying, especially given the death toll in Iraq etc. didn't make it "partisan" to think Bush was worse. Or, that I was an "Obama lover" or "didn't care" about what was going on. Glenn Greenwald's yes brigade has the same sentiment at times. This lack of coverage is curious with all the talk and coverage on blogs, Democracy Now!, Rachel Maddow et. al. Finally, there was some confusion on the difference between the requirements of those under our control (including regarding torture) and those outside of our control, including those actively avoiding it to continue to threaten the U.S., join with our enemies and make retrieval without military force very tricky.
Drones were used pre-Obama and until now, the last American citizen killed by one was during the Bush years. Yes, drone use greatly increased in the last two years, a strategic choice to target actual terrorists (or those we think are), not a country that didn't invade us, and in a way that put a lot less of Americans in harms' way (or in a more indirect way than being shot at). The result are thousands of people killed, some fraction innocents, though what exactly that means is a matter of debate. This to me is ill advised, but again, cf. Iraq where hundreds of thousands were killed according to the Lancet study, tens of thousands even by Bush's own mouth.
Also, this is important, drone use is not inherently illegal. At least, that is the current understanding of international law. There are problems, especially if the CIA is involved, at least without better safeguards. There is also a question of locale -- it is quite different to use it in areas generally understood to be "war zones" (I use the quotes, since there is real debate over these issues) such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drones have an uncomfortable feel to some (killing by remote control), well grounded on some level, but is dropping bombs far above the ground truly different in kind? Howard Zinn and others didn't seem to think so when talking about WWII bombing raids. And, it targeted attacks actually lead to much less loss of life. The cost/benefit of easier warfare is hazy, granted, but the people not killed by better pinpoint accuracy is duly noted.
In 2001, Congress (yes, even Ron Paul) authorized military force against the forces (including individuals and groups, a controversial bit) that attacked us on 9/11. The open-ended nature of this authorization is troubling, and some clarification should be passed given changing times, but it leads me to be turned off when people claim use of drones against such forces is "assassination," a few even saying killing OBL is one such incident. As if killing General Rommel during WWII via a raid would be such. This aside from if it was a good idea. A strict reading of the law might question it, but it is a type of venial sin at worst. I talked about a speech on this issue here.
The federal courts, up to the Supreme Court, authorized use of military force against American citizens if they are "enemy combatants." This is after all what the Hamdi case was about. But, he was captured on the proverbial battlefield. Thus, when it was reported that Anwar-al-Awlaki, a bi-national, was targeted, his family tried to narrow things -- if an American citizen is involved, at least, the government cannot use military force against them outside of war zones. The family lost on standing issues, though one judge was wary about deciding the question at all. I find the family's claim reasonable, surely as a matter of policy, but the Obama Administration doesn't agree. Al Qaeda forces in Yemen are a legitimate target, even if an American citizen is involved. Such as the one just reportedly killed.
As noted, this apparently (you never know for sure) is only the second such citizen killed by drone in a decade. As with Troy Davis, is it really worth the trouble killing this guy? Going to a good international law blog, it's debatable. The question might be if he was in some "material" way connected to threats to the U.S. in the relevant way. This is an important question in the lower federal courts -- just strong must the connection be for the person to be an "enemy combatant," since you after all are saying you can be authorized to detain or even kill these people. There is confusion here -- some seem to think that they deserve full criminal trial rights. This might be ideal, but that isn't the rule. They are not being tried criminally, but in a military context. Some lower standard, but some standard all the same, is involved. And, when an American citizen is involved, who clearly has the right of protection from our government (see, e.g., The Slaughterhouse Cases), special care should be provided. I don't know if it was adequate done here legally. As policy, killing him was probably a mistake. For me at least.*
I might give a strict meaning to "enemy combatant," and in open-ended conflicts, Congress should not let some authorization of force a decade ago just linger on. It is true that Congress has to re-authorize funding every two years, but it is something of a joke to suggest this is a very serious examination of the legitimacy of the conflict. Still, killing American citizens, or particularly aliens, via on the ground attacks, dropping bombs from planes or by remote control in Afghanistan or Pakistan is "legal," if not a great idea. It is not "assassination" to do this. The means might be a problem, particularly if the means are done so secretly that it is unclear if the proper rules were followed. Once you get pass that, it gets closer. I think the speech referenced in general is reasonable, if too open-ended at some point. Where that point is past my pay grade, though I pretend to be able to say reasonable things about it. The killing here is rather close to the line, at least.
Congress should pass a new authorization or we should stop our roving military force. At the very least, if an American citizen is involved, family members (see the Hamdi case) should have standing to plead their cases. If they did, giving the state of the law in the federal circuit, he very well might have lost. This very well might have been unjust, but giving this guy any grounds of being some kind of martyr isn't grand either.
---
* Rhetoric aside, no one is being "summarily" killed here. There is a process involved in determining who is targeted, and the Obama Administration isn't claiming some open-ended power to kill anyone deemed a threat. So, some drug kingpin can't be killed by drone when criminal process isn't successful. I fully am aware of the limits to such "process" and particularly with American citizens are involved, some court review is appropriate, but as with "assassination," some care should be used when discussing what is going on here. If not, why worry about proportional use of force or anything, since it's all bad?