US defends killing Americans who join al Qaeda

Published: March 6, 2012

US Attorney General Eric Holder delivers a national security speech regarding the Obama administration's ongoing counter terrorism efforts during his visit to Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, March 5, 2012. PHOTO: REUTERS

CHICAGO: The Obama administration on Monday asserted a right to kill Americans overseas who are plotting attacks against the United States (US), laying out specific details for the first time about a policy that critics argue violates US and international law.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said that Americans who have joined al Qaeda or its affiliates can be targeted for lethal strikes if there is an imminent threat to the United States and capturing them is not feasible.

In prepared remarks to the Northwestern University School of Law, Holder did not refer directly to the CIA drone strike last year that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Muslim cleric who joined al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate and directed many attacks.

“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al Qaeda in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in the prepared remarks provided in advance.

“The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws,” he said.

License to kill?      

Civil liberties groups have decried the program as effectively a green light to assassinate Americans without due process in the courts under the US Constitution, a charge that Holder flatly rejected.

Court approval for such strikes was unnecessary, he said, adding “the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a US citizen.”

President Barack Obama and his aides have fiercely defended their stand on national security in the face of criticism from Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail that terrorism suspects are treated too leniently.

Holder said the use of lethal force against Americans abroad would have to comply with several principles governing the law of war, including ensuring the target was of military value and that steps were taken to limit collateral damage.

“The principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering,” he said, but added that “these principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons.”

A US official said that there was fierce debate within the administration about whether Holder should give the speech, questioning if it would assuage or irritate Obama’s liberal backers who have been concerned that his policies were too close to that of his predecessor President George W Bush.

“The targeted killing program raises profound legal and moral questions that should be subjected to public debate, and constitutional questions that should be considered by the judiciary,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.

‘Congressional authorization for counterterrorism operations’

The United States has launched numerous strikes against al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan using drones, unmanned aerial vehicles that at times have killed and wounded civilians in addition to the intended target, provoking an outcry.

A UN special investigator in 2010 called on the United States to halt CIA drone strikes, though the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided a direct condemnation and said it was up to governments and military authorities to decide.

Holder said the administration abides by “robust oversight” when targeting Americans abroad, informing senior lawmakers about its counterterrorism operations.

Like the Bush administration, Holder asserted that conducting counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates was the purview of the presidency, citing 2001 congressional authorization.

He said the president has constitutional responsibilities to protect and defend the country.

“Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments,” Holder said.

The ACLU last month sued the Obama administration in federal  court, demanding that Holder’s Justice Department release what the civil liberties group says it believes are legal memoranda justifying targeting Americans overseas using lethal force.

US officials have linked Awlaki to several plots against the United States, including the 2009 Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man to blow up a US commercial airliner as it arrived in Detroit from Amsterdam with a bomb hidden in his underwear.

Reader Comments (3)

  • Zakir Mukeem
    Mar 6, 2012 - 8:06AM

    i say bring this debate on international front and try the US army for all war crimes they have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tribal belt of pakistan, I never thought for a second that every one that US army kills is a bad guy, the have killed millions of inocents in the process of killing a few thousand. Sad and disgusting.

    Recommend

  • John B
    Mar 6, 2012 - 9:13AM

    In case PAK is wondering Sec. Clinton and many others in US congress are members of ACLU.

    How to deal with individuals and groups whose only citizenship is agenda of their own is going to be the challenge of this modern times. Does Mlilitary action against SWAT Taliban or PAK TTP or other groups justified.

    Recommend

  • kamran
    Mar 6, 2012 - 12:42PM

    @Zakir Mukeem:
    And also register a case against the government of Pakistan who harboured he terrorist OBL.Recommend

More in World