Comment Paper #6: The Role of Imminence in Self-Defense

The article, Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing, by Russell Christopher in our Targeted Killings book brings up some interesting points about the concept of imminence and the imminence requirement for the justification of self-defense.  Christopher is able to punch some serious holes in this theory that self-defense must come when attack is imminent. One of the more convincing arguments that I saw was that the imminence requirement favors those parties that have the ability to move and act swiftly, while disadvantaging actors who either don’t have the resources or time to react quickly and, therefore, effectively defend themselves. This is a criticism that Christopher uses in his assessment of conflicts between states and non-state entities, such as Al Queda. The problem with the imminence standard is because of the fact that these non-state entities are unpredictable in their actions and are hard to survey. They could, therefore, strike at any moment.

This line of thought brings up the idea that perhaps the idea of defending oneself from an “imminent threat” as the only justifiable case of self-defense should be rethought. Christopher brings up the notion of measuring imminence based on both a temporal and action component. However, doesn’t the action component also make it hard to effectively defend oneself? After all, if you are waiting for an action that can serve as an “objective manifestation”, then is it not also too late to demonstrate an effective self-defense. This is something that also presents itself in our use of drones to target terrorists, both in the temporal and action sense. When we target terrorists, it is usually when they are doing something that is completely mundane. Let us take the famous raid of Seal Team Six on Osama bin Laden’s compound on May 1, 2011 (although this example may not be one of a drone taking out the target, drones did play a part in the initial surveillance). At the time, bin Laden wasn’t engaging in anything sinister. He was sleeping. There may have been evidence that he was planning another attack, but to my knowledge, it was not likely to occur soon or at least immediately. One could say that bin Laden’s status as a terrorist would be enough to label him as a perpetual or ongoing threat. However, I believe that another, albeit, very related explanation is in order.

In my opinion, imminence, at least in the sense that we are discussing it here, should be removed from the temporal mindset and be redefined. This redefinition isn’t something that needs to be completely drastic in terms of regular thought, just a simple paradigm shift. It is my belief that, in describing what we would label as “imminent”, we shouldn’t think of when this would occur, but instead, if it is to occur at all. The “ongoing threat” status that many terrorists receive in justifying their being targeted, while related to the assessment I pose, is too limited in its temporal scope, pertaining strictly to immediate events, instead of the long-term potentiality of the risk. In essence, I am criticizing idea that a threat is only open to self-defense when it is immediate and upon you as being both too “procrastinative” (if that’s a word) and too urgent. It is too "procrastinative" in the sense that it has not taken into account that the immediate threat could have been circumvented if something had been done sooner and it is too urgent in that it is tries to couch everything in this sense that an attack could happen at any moment, which could lead to rushed action and could also cause them to overlook certain measures that would ensure the target's guilt (instead of retroactively realizing we may have killed the wrong individual).

Instead of thinking of it like a time bomb that will go off in seconds if nothing is done, think of it as you would a reformed alcoholic. There is no guarantee that the reformed alcoholic would ever drink again, even in the presence of alcohol, but are you willing to take the chance of him falling off the wagon, even if him eventually turning to drinking again would take place years down the line? Another and probably clearer example would be the Norman case, where a woman killed her abusive husband in his sleep because she felt he would eventually kill her. In his sleep, the man posed no threat to her. There was also the consideration that it would be years before he could actually kill her or that she could live under his abuse for the rest of his life and she would never die from it (although such a life would also be incredibly tragic). Hell, there was even the possibility that he could wake up and decide that he was never going to hit her again. However, it was her judgment, based on his past behavior, that the likelihood of her being killed by him was too high to take the risk of living under his abuse for one more day. I believe that a similar mindset should be used to justify targeted killings of terrorist combatants.

I realize that such a perspective is also problematic in its own right and, to be clear, this is not my own definite position. This is simply based on thoughts I had while reading the article.