Comment Paper 5

After reading the article “Violence and Justice” by Coady, I question the justice of war. The two terms “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello” are the “laws of war”, standard validations used to declare war. Has the United States used these guidelines before declaring war on another state? Under Coady’s Principles of Just War Theory, I believe the United States meets the requirements. However, the principles are very ambiguous and leave room for one’s own interpretation. Rule two states: “There must be a just cause”. Is it a just cause when you aid an allied force? Is it a just cause when you are trying to promote peace amongst two other countries? These actions would constitute as moral cause rather than a just cause. Any state going to war will believe that their cause is just; there needs to be a clear definition of what a just cause is. Rule three states: “War must be a last resort”. I feel like this principle goes unnoticed; I do not believe nations use war as their last resort, but as their first or second choice. Nations go to war for different reasons: political, economic, religious, etc. hoping to accomplish their goal of destruction and defeat. After a worthless attempt of trying to reconcile, nations automatically declare war. Unnecessary destruction can be avoided if war was the last resort. Rule four states: “There must be a reasonable prospect of success”. I disagree with this principle. How can war be successful after you lost so many soldiers and civilians? Not only do you endure the pain of the deceased, traumatize many individuals, but you now have a broken economy. War is one of the many reasons why the United States is in debt now; war is expensive. Although a nation may have accomplished their purpose at war, they are still unsuccessful because of the damage they caused to their own nation. 

Analyzing the Disposition Matrix

     In the 20^th century, the wars we fought in were not against high-value target enemies; rather, our conventional wars were fought against a common enemy.  Countries battled countries in attempts to use warfare as a means for political gains.  Although we still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and have not given up many aspects of more traditional warfare, there has been an evident shift in doctrine as to what are priorities are in combat.  As a result of advances in technology and the increasingly relied upon ability to execute surgical drone strikes, it has become evident that the goals of the Obama Administration and counterterrorism today have shifted towards eliminating high value targets and circumventing the need to win on the ground.  The disposition matrix has come under fire for its controversial database for determining what constitutes a high value target, and has been described colloquially as a next generation kill list.

     I believe that the rhetoric used to describe the disposition matrix might carry an excessively negative connotation.  The term ‘kill list’ is political in that it sort of demonizes counterterrorist actions.  There are countless problems with the unregulated use of drone warfare, most notably the high incidence of noncombatant casualties.  That being said, the disposition matrix, in the most idealistic sense, is a method for avoiding dangerous combat situations for our soldiers and Marines who are fighting an enemy who may potentially be rendered ineffective if their leadership is targeted.  Granted, the War on Terror has proven that despite the amount of leadership in Al Qaida and the Taliban we kill, there are always more radicalized figureheads who assume the roles their deceased predecessors once held.  However, in the perfect world, if we shift our attention towards attacking only those who are at the helm of terrorist activity, I believe that is a step in the right direction.  Unfortunately, this means there is likely no end in the near future to the use of targeted killing, but if the focus on collecting accurate intelligence can reduce the amount of casualties in surgical strikes, then perhaps some good can come of the new strategy of the disposition matrix.  Remember, Bin Laden was our most highly valued target, and the death of him alone was an enormous victory for us, more notable than the vast number of combatants killed in action. 

Comment Paper 5

The definition of due process states "a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable.Due process and targeted killings are a debated topic. My feeling towards it is simple. I don't believe terrorists/targets should have due process applied. They are not citizens of the United States, so why should they be able to benefit from the rights that Americans do? This may seem cynical to some people, but it's what I believe.
As far as deciding whether or not soldiers can hit a target, evaluate the danger of the target. Is the target commiting an act of violence, planning to commit an act or violence or already commited an act of violence? I do not believe that soldiers can just perform raids on anyone, however, I also don't think there needs to be so many guidelines to follow. If there is evidence that supports that the target has acted violenty towards the United States, then the assault is justified. The enemy has no rules of engagement, why should we?

Comment Paper 5: Individual Responsibility

            When questioning the morality of targeted killings, it is important to look at the potential threat of the target, and if that threat warrants the targets urgent death. Though I at first did not know if the targeted killing example involving Al was morally justified, after completing the article I now agree with Phillip Montague’s position that the members of a joint agency are all individually responsible for their actions if they are producing the same beliefs and desires.

            Although the terrorist Al was hunting down (a bomb maker) was not an immanent threat himself to the United States, he is still ultimately a major contributor to the potential death of an innocent life, and is there for individually responsible for the deaths that he is going to cause. Despite the fact that the terrorist is not himself pushing a button and detonating the bomb, he is helping the bomber complete the task of wreaking destruction on those desired. However, it is important to note that in Montague’s example they knew for a fact that this terrorist’s bombs would be used against the United States. This information is key because targeted killings should not be performed merely based off of assumptions. In order to be justified, I believe there must be profound evidence that the “terrorist” is guilty of contributing towards potential United States deaths.

            Montague used a fantastic example, which described two individuals jump-starting a car. Despite the fact that they are doing it together (one starting the ignition, the other connecting the dead battery to a live one) they are both individually responsible for having the car start. In similar fashion, a man who creates a complex plan to assassinate a political figure is still responsible for that political figures death, despite the fact that he may not have pulled the trigger himself. After all, the minions that execute these tasks are rarely as dangerous as the minds behind the operation.  

Comment Paper 5: The Moral Justification for Defensive Targeted Killings

This week’s readings discussed the Just War Theory and the argument for the morality of targeted killings. In chapter 10, “Defending Defensive Targeted Killings,” Phillip Montague argues that ordinary moral principles of self-defense commonly restricted to individually aggressive actions can also be applied to jointly aggressive actions. Targeted killings can be used to apply the jointly aggressive actions that are used against terrorists for national self-defense. I agree with Montague’s argument that it is “morally permissible defensive homicide” (Montague 294) to kill a terrorist if there is no other way of preventing the individual from killing others. It is the responsibility of the U.S. military to protect U.S. citizens from harm. This use of targeting killing against terrorists is merely a preemptive joint defensive action to prevent an event such as 9/11 from ever occurring again. As discussed by Montague, the only instance in which I would disagree with targeted killing and consider it to be morally impermissible is when it results in the death of innocent civilians living in other countries that are inhabited by terrorists. Unfortunately, innocent civilians in countries such as Pakistan are dying every day from the use of drones to target terrorists. In order to justify the use of drones for targeted killing improvements must be made with their accuracy of only killing the individuals involved with terrorism.

Critics of targeted killing believe that “ordinary moral principles permit homicide only when necessary to prevent the loss of life or comparably serious harms” (Montague 285).  These critics argue that the justification for killing should only apply to conflicts between the military forces of political communities. In my opinion, there is moral justification for the targeted killing of terrorists. Even though these individuals are not connected to a particular nation of people, they are a force that must be controlled. At the present time, targeted killing through the use of drones is the United States’ best weapon against terrorists. It is this technology that allowed the U.S. military to kill the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden without the loss of many other lives. While it is not guaranteed that Osama Bin Laden would have initiated another terrorist attack as disastrous to the United States as the attack of 9/11, the use of targeted killing was able to eliminate the possibility of his future actions. As long as the focus of targeted killing is placed on terrorists, and the death of civilians is avoided at all costs, I would consider defensive targeted killings against terrorists to be a morally permissible action for the United States.

Possible UN Due Process Resolution

The United States in its drone strikes over the years has come under some scrutiny in its lack of due process for its targeted victims. As we all know, international law isn’t the most helpful in this situation, as it more or less serves as a guide rather than a set of solid laws and regulations. That being said, I thought it’d be interesting to evaluate possible solutions as they related to the legality of the United States’ actions. I had to do a bit more research outside of the readings for this, but I thought it important. According to the International Court of Justice: Article 38 of their Statute of the Court, the court, when deciding on cases, should apply international customs to their decisions. Due process is generally recognized as an international custom, according to the Targeted Sanctions and Due Process Fassbender study conducted by the Humboldt University of Berlin for the UN. In 2009, the UN further implanted due process for suspected criminals into their practices with the passage of Resolution 1904. According to these findings from the ICJ and the UN, drone strikes are legally cloudy due to their inability to provide simple rights to the victims. Given that the attacks have clearly been successful against fighting terrorists, who are also illegal and operating under said pretenses according to the UN, there must be a compromise as to how a nation can get around these issues. A UN resolution should be proposed that operates along these lines: The United Nations reserves the right to investigate ay drone strike taken out by one entity’s military in another country’s sovereign land or airspace. If the investigation finds that the following standards have not been met, consequences for the attacking entity will ensue. Standards: - There must be enough intelligence deemed sufficient by the UN Security Council as reason to strike. The attack must be proven as self-defense. - Other options besides drone strikes have been explored. - It must be proven that the targets are capable of a strike. - Evidence of weapons must be found. Clearly these are just a few important features of a possible UN resolution. I felt that these found standards are important in showing that the attacking entity wasn’t reckless in its actions (which is ironically one of the early definitions of terrorism that we have already discussed). Judging by the readings and lectures, it’s important to get due process straightened out. In my opinion, as a world leader, we shouldn’t shy away from our own laws when engaging in international combat. That being said, due process is something that needs to be addressed.

Comment Paper #5: Are Due Process and TK Compatible?

This weeks reading about targeted killing (or TK) made me think about the debate that has surrounded this military tactic. Much of the discourse surrounding the use of targeted killing has centered on the fact that it occurs without the prerequisite of due process, where the individual in question is extradited and tried. Because of the urgency of many of these scenarios, such as the one posed by Blum and Heymann, it is important for action to be taken quickly. Therefore, the questions should be asked as to whether in these situations, strict adherence to due process necessary and/or it is ever fully possible to supply due process to the individuals being targeted. There are several possible answers to these questions.

To be clear, I am in no way advocating that any of these “solutions” should be adopted as US legal policy. On the contrary, I am completely unsure as to whether any of my thoughts could indeed function as a substitute for traditional due process in the form of a trial. I am simply relaying a string of thoughts and ideas that are reflective of my four years of studying government and politics. Now, moving forward, I will discuss the various ways in which the due process requirement could be met in the future practice of TK.

The easiest argument in support of TK to maintain in the face of its criticism would be that due process is unnecessary in the context of warfare. In order to more fully analyze this position, we turn to what Finkelstein, Ohlin, and Altman call the “Individualist” model of Just War Theory (JWT). In this analysis of JWT, the “right to kill human beings in war is ultimately the same license we have to kill in individual self-defense.” Therefore, large-scale warfare (and the casualties that come with it) are simply the amalgamation of each individual soldier’s right to defend themselves being put into action. In essence, from this perspective, we can look at TK as each sniper or drone operator defending themselves from attack by killing the intended target. This is not such a stretch of the imagination if killing in self-defense is indeed a tactic that has been used in justification of many domestic killings. By following this argument, waiting for any due process could be seen as putting yourself and/or the lives of soldiers in danger as the threat of an attack from this individual becomes greater with each passing moment.

However, if we approach this dilemma from the perspective that due process is always necessary, we are confronted with more variables. The most prominent of these variables would be: exactly what type of due process should be supplied?  For civil rights advocates, the ideal form of due process would be traditional extradition and a trial. However, given several diplomatic and tactical realities, can this solution be implemented effectively? What if we have strained relations with the government of the host nation and they are unwilling to cooperate? What if there is no time for the suspect to be extradited and tried?

It is because of these questions that I have given some thought into what could be done if these situations ever arose (which probably happens frequently). For one, ad hoc military courts could be created for the specific purpose of determining the guilt of the individual, where he/she receives an advocate, who then goes back and forth with a “prosecutor” over the alleged evidence of their wrongdoing, and then a tribunal of military officials deliberates on the party’s guilt. Obviously, these ad hoc courts would have to be held with the defendant in absentia and, therefore, obvious contestations could arise from that detail.

Another, more extreme solution would be for the US government to claim that the initial deliberations by military officials to strike are all the due process needed. It may sound incredibly harsh, but there have been similar decisions by government officials and even by the courts when talking of due process for certain groups of people. For example, in the famous case Yamataya v. Fisher (1903), a Japanese immigrant woman was deported without what you and I would call the traditional due process of an immigration hearing to determine if she was actually in the country illegally. However, the Court ruled that the initial interview that was conducted between the woman and an immigration official was all the “due process” that was needed. Therefore, the decision that the presentation of evidence to military/government officials, who then are the sole deciders of an enemy combatant’s fate, could be viewed as an acceptable exercise of due process if viewed through the Yamataya analysis.

Obviously, I am not proponing any of these solutions. Some of them seem plausible to me, while others do not. However, what is more important to me is the debate. What do all of you believe would be the best way to meet the standards of due process when it comes to the use of TK? Or do you think that it is impossible to meet those standards and the US should either A) abandon the use of drones in TK or B) justify it through the “Individualist” self-defense analysis?