Transparency and Process : Killing our Citizens Abroad
We’ve now killed three American members of al Qaeda overseas with drone strikes, and also two innocent hostages in the most recent strike.
I don’t think most of us are overly concerned with these particular three targeted killings, but many of us are concerned over the dangerous precedents set, the lack of transparency to process, and just how the heck you get on the list, and how the heck you stay off it because all Americans have certain rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Charges of treason are not enough to justify extrajudicial killings. While I am certain there are more steps to the process, and more concrete things — we don’t really know what they are …
I am not going to get into the can of worms represented by the debate over targeted killings by drones here, but rather want to instead raise the bar higher and make the window more transparent for when it’s ok to kill US Citizens under the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” that is the backbone of our drone killing policy and process.
We know that our president must sign an XO for a targeted strike against anyone to occur, and we know that congress has some after the fact oversight after Dianne Feinstein’s insistence a few years back. What else should be in place to ensure some adherence to a reasonable legal procedure for this policy? What checklists should be in place? I’m going to open the discussion with some things, please feel free to add to this in comments, since it really does bear more discussion.
The first thing I’d like to see is prior advise and consent from a very small congressional committee when a US citizen is greenlit as a candidate for potential targeted killing. This will raise some legal hackles due to the word “imminent” as used in the AUMF but I will posit and submit that recruiting new members for al Qaeda or other designated terror orgs is always an imminent threat to the US and justifies greenlighting the recruiter for future killing.
The other cry you might hear about this is that the process would take too long. To that I will answer that we knew that we were going to kill Adam Gadahn, Anwar al Awlaki, and Farouq many moons before the drone was ever gassed up to do so. Someone greenlit them for targeting prior, when and how was that done?
The second thing is is a checklist of what qualifies you for submission for targeted killing? A partial and example list might look like this:
- you are a declared, verified, and active member of a non state designated terror organization that has declared and verified threats of dangerous intent to the US, its citizens, and/or its allies.
- you are charged with treason
- The CIA chief and the Joint Chiefs of staff have recommended your targeted killing
- you have demonstrably taken threatening actions against the US and our interests
- etc. etc.
The third thing I would like see is a public declaration* when someone is targeted for killing and why. This way you have the opportunity to turn yourself in to forestall death and to gain a trial. The public has a chance to protest, voice their views, and or contest this action in court.
So, that’s my thought on the process so far, what are yours? Also please note that I am not highly versant in things like “just war” or the legal underpinnings of GWOT, indeed, what I’ve written here is probably laughable to those who are versant. I just would like to see more discussion by everyday people about what’s going on, when and how it stops, and if it’s necessary.
*e.g. our 1 million dollar reward for “information leading to the arrest of Adam Gadahn” could have instead been worded to also serve as public notification. It could have stated that the subject is targeted for killing by the US military as well as the reward for info.