The
Morality of Targeted Killing
The targeting killing of an individual who has been
identified as planning a terrorist attack is not something to be taken lightly
considering the past, present and future threats of terrorism and terrorist
attacks against the United States. We
spend billions of dollars gathering intelligence and information in an attempt
to detect and deter the successful implementation of planned attacks within our
borders; unfortunately, prior to 9/11, we were so focused on the collection of
data, we failed to adequately share with other government agencies and
organizations to the point we were unaware of just how much we actually knew
until after the fact. The idea of going
into another country and killing anyone sounds in and of itself, immoral. We would not tolerate such an invasion from
other countries if they took that same liberty.
In most cases “such a killing amounts to an unlawful, extrajudicial
execution” (Banks, 2013, p. 240). What allows
us to temporarily put on our “moral blinders” long enough to exact the kind of punishment,
revenge or self-preservation we used in the execution of Osama bin Laden?
There are several ways the United States has at its
disposal to gain custody of known terrorists who seek refuge in their home
country or a host country that shares their same ideology on terrorism or the
same distain for the United States. The
United States can petition the local authorities and request the country place
the individual under arrest and extradite him or her to the United States. One reason why this is considered the less
viable option is because of the time it takes to it process an extradition, the
suspected terrorist may still have time to implement the terrorist plan or may
have been released from custody due to the instability and lack of organization
in the governments law enforcement agency.
Targeting killings have been a part of the Unites States
counterterrorism policy for quite some time. While the scope has been expanded
or banned by executive order by previous presidents, President Clinton authorized
“the use of legal force in self-defense against Al-Qaeda” (Banks, 2013, p. 240). After 9/11 President Bush activated the war
paradigm that subscribes that once a terrorist, always a terrorist (both on and
off the battlefield), implementing a counterterrorism strategy and widened the
scope of potential targets. The war
paradigm “as a counterterrorism strategy enabled administration lawyers to
differentiate attacks targeting terrorists from banned assassinations and
rationalize such targeting as lawful operations against enemy combatants” (Banks,
2013, p. 240). President Obama expanded the targeted attacks
to include areas war was not ongoing and included the use of Predator drones. Once the war on terrorism was acknowledged as
a global war, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter gave states the
authorization to use force when they have been attacked and justified targeted
killing as a means of self-defense.
Blum and Heymann established the moral framework for war
and law enforcement values that required targeted killings be governed by a set
of norms that would make targeted killings the last option. The rules were that only the active terrorist
would be targeted, positive identification of the target, collateral damages
kept to a minimum and reserved for situations where urgent action was required. These stipulations were put in place to protect
civilians and noncombatants. The ethical
issues of targeted killings were addressed by Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale.
Their concern was that the governments not emulate the actions of the terrorist
to the point that they “look too much like the terrorists” (Banks, 2013, p. 242). They
noted assassination was immoral and politically motivated, violated due process
and American values and questions the human rights, democracy and morality of
our foreign policy.
In my opinion, the United States has every right to target
known and self-proclaimed terrorists both home and abroad. There should be no safe haven or refuge for
those who secretly plan violent attacks that result in mass casualties and
destroy the lives of innocent civilians.
These cowardly acts should not go unanswered. Recent attacks reflect what could very well
become commonplace if we take the position that the moral highroad will keep us
safe. When terrorist cells are found operating
covertly within the United States, the same efforts should be applied to the
threat. I personally could not do it, but
support the efforts of our government which send the message America will not
lay down and allow our way of life to be threatened or compromised; to attack
the United States would bring an immediate and severe military response. I consider anyone defending or harboring a known
terrorist as unlawful combatants as well.
My only concern is that the targeted killing be conducted in a way that will
specifically identify, locate and eliminate the terrorist threat without random
disregard for civilian casualties.
References
Banks,
C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, INC.
