In association with the International Commission of Jurists

General

06 Oct

Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes have been arguing for several days now at the Lawfare blog that the Obama administration should release either the Justice Department opinion approving the Al-Awlaki attack, suitably redacted, or some statement that puts out in some detail its legal reasoning.  The Washington Post has evidently read those posts closely, as it comes out today with a strong editorial endorsing the same thing.  I broadly agree with these arguments. I am equally concerned, however, with something that both Goldsmith and Wittes raised in their posts, viz., the increasing absurdity of a system of “covert” action in which, as the ACLU’s Benjamin Wizner put it in an amusing exchange with the White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan at Harvard Law School a few weeks ago, they must be not be acknowledged though we can read about them in the newspaper.  The problem is that this eventually goes from amusingly absurd to de-legitimating.  It is amusing so long as the operations are successful — the Awlaki killing, the Bin Laden raid — and the (still illegal) leaks to the press are all about taking credit. It turns into something a lot less fun when something goes bad, as something inevitably will in operations of this kind, and these same extra-legal channels of wink-wink-nod-nod are used as parties try to deflect blame, put it on someone else, utilize press leaks to shift responsibility: this is not accountability, finally, it’s a natural but deeply flawed way of avoiding true accountability.  It involves informal mechanisms for taking credit when something good happens, and offloading it on someone else when something bad happens.  It’s a bad, but unfortunately tempting, idea when the news is good and when the news is bad.
|
04 Oct

Russian and China issue a dramatic double veto of the US-backed measure directed against Syria; nine Council members voted in favor, and India, Brazil, South Africa, and Lebanon abstained.  Welcome to the New Post-Hegemonic World Order?  It's too soon to tell and our Data Set is insufficiently full.  Still, it does recall David Rieff's observation that a multipolar world is...

|
03 Oct

How does citizenship fit into the al-Awlaki picture?  It's obviously important.  Otherwise he's just another senior-level al Qaeda operative taken out by a drone.  Not insignificant, but not an event that would generate a lot of discussion, especially not on the law. On the other hand, imagine if al-Awlaki had been an American not of Middle Eastern descent and not a...

|
03 Oct

Jack Goldsmith, writing at Lawfare, urges the Obama administration to release a redacted version of the Justice Department’s memo concluding that the targeting of Al-Awlaki was lawful — if not a redacted version, then some reasonably complete and authoritative statement of its legal reasoning.  I agree.  The nature of these operations abroad is that they will almost certainly remain beyond judicial review and, as a consequence, OLC opinions will serve as the practical mechanism of the rule of law.
The best argument against disclosure is that it would reveal classified information or, relatedly, acknowledge a covert action.  This concern is often a legitimate bar to publishing secret executive branch legal opinions.  But the administration has (in unattributed statements) acknowledged and touted the U.S. role in the al-Aulaqi killing, and even President Obama said that the killing was in part “a tribute to our intelligence community.”  I understand the reasons the government needs to preserve official deniability for a covert action, but I think that a legal analysis of the U.S. ability to target and kill enemy combatants (including U.S. citizens) outside Afghanistan can be disclosed without revealing means or methods of intelligence-gathering or jeopardizing technical covertness.  The public legal explanation need not say anything about the means of fire (e.g. drones or something else), or particular countries, or which agencies of the U.S. government are involved, or the intelligence basis for the attacks.  (Whether the administration should release more information about the intelligence supporting al-Aulaqi’s operational role is a separate issue that raises separate classified information concerns.)   We know the government can provide a public legal analysis of this sort because presidential counterterrorism advisor John Brennan and State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh have given such legal explanations in speeches, albeit in limited and conclusory terms.  These speeches show that there is no bar in principle to a public disclosure of a more robust legal analysis of targeted killings like al-Aulaqi’s.  So too do the administration’s many leaks of legal conclusions (and operational details) about the al-Aulaqi killing.
The public accountability and legitimacy of these vital national security operations is strengthened to the extent that the public is informed and, through the political branches, part of the debate on the law of targeted killing.  That cannot be operational discussion, for obvious reasons.  But there is still a good deal that could be said about the underlying legal rationales, without compromising security.   I myself favor revisions, either as internal executive branch policy or, in a better world, as formal legal revisions to Title 50 (CIA, covert action, etc.) and the oversight and reporting processes.  One of those revisions would be to get beyond the not just silly, but in some deeper way, de-legitimizing insistence that these operations cannot be acknowledged even as a program; I would establish a distinct category of “deniable” rather than “covert,” and a category of programs that can be acknowledged as existing even without comment on particular operations. John Bellinger, the former State Department Legal Adviser in the last years of the Bush administration, raises concerns in the Washington Post today about the best way to defend the international legitimacy of these operations.  He notes the deep hostility of the international advocacy groups, UN special raporteurs, numbers of foreign governments, and the studied silence of US allies (even as NATO, I’d add, has relied upon drones as an essential element of its Libyan air war).
[T]he U.S. legal position may not satisfy the rest of the world. No other government has said publicly that it agrees with the U.S. policy or legal rationale for drones. European allies, who vigorously criticized the Bush administration for asserting the unilateral right to use force against terrorists in countries outside Afghanistan, have neither supported nor criticized reported U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Instead, they have largely looked the other way, as they did with the killing of Osama bin Laden. Human rights advocates, on the other hand, while quiet for several years (perhaps to avoid criticizing the new administration), have grown increasingly uncomfortable with drone attacks. Last year, the U.N. rapporteur for summary executions and extrajudicial killings said that drone strikes may violate international humanitarian and human rights law and could constitute war crimes. U.S. human rights groups, which stirred up international opposition to Bush administration counterterrorism policies, have been quick to condemn the Awlaki killing. Even if Obama administration officials are satisfied that drone strikes comply with domestic and international law, they would still be wise to try to build a broader international consensus. The administration should provide more information about the strict limits it applies to targeting and about who has been targeted. One of the mistakes the Bush administration made in its first term was adopting novel counterterrorism policies without attempting to explain and secure international support for them.
The problem of international legitimacy is always tricky, as Bellinger knows better than anyone.  I look at it this way.  Tell the international community that we care about legitimacy — which is to say, that we care about their opinion in relation to our practices — and all of sudden we have handed other folks a rhetorical hold-up, to a greater or lesser degree.  Unsurprisingly, the price of their good opinion and their desire to exercise control over our actions goes up.  There is nothing special to this; it’s just standard bargaining theory.
|
03 Oct

Ruth Wedgwood sends this announcement along: International Law Weekend 2011 — the world-famous gathering of the migrating flock of international lawyers for the fall season — begins on Thursday night, October 20, 2011, at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 42 West 44th Street, NYC, and continues at 9 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, October 21–22, at Fordham Law School, at 140 West 62nd Street, NYC.
|
03 Oct

There appears to be some agreement that continuous combat functionaries (CCF) that belong to an armed group that is involved in an armed conflict may be targeted "anywhere, anytime". I agree with this position and even had Kevin cite p. 206 of Gary Solis' book as affirmation of that position. The question is what is the legal justification for "anytime,...

|
03 Oct

The Supreme Court has an incredibly thin diet for international law cases this term. No blockbuster cases, no major questions of international law, no issues addressing executive power in the foreign affairs arena. Thin, thin, thin. Thus far it appears that there are only two cases that tangentially address questions of interest to this blog, and neither are particularly...

|
01 Oct

Eli Lake and John Barry at the Daily Beast sum up the Obama administration’s counterterrorism-on-offense doctrines.  Of particular interest is this paragraph stressing the largely unmentioned role of on-the-ground intelligence gathering and operations in order to make possible targeted strikes: And while the drones are the most outward signs of the covert campaigns that rage from the Horn of Africa to Pakistan, it...

|
30 Sep

How should we think about targeting Al-Aulaqi?  Here's a quick take, trying to put the main questions in some logical order.  As the reader can see from other posts on this blog, many issues are contested, including what the proper legal questions are, so please understand that this is simply one way of looking at the issues - though I believe (without any special inside information) that it is more or less in line with the US government legal position. Who? As an international law matter, is Al-Aulaqi a lawful target? The US government sees him as taking part in hostilities, part of the operational leadership of an associated force with Al Qaeda, the AQAP.  So, yes, he can be targeted with lethal force — and targeted without warning, without an attempt to arrest or apprehend as a law enforcement matter.  (Although many in the international law academic and advocacy communities have essentially taken on the ICRC's full DPH views as expressed in its interpretive guidance, the US government has not; and although there seems to be a bit (as predicted by critics of the ICRC's issuing of the "interpretive guidance") of believing that if you repeat it often enough, you make it so, again that is not the US government's view.  State practice still matters.) Where?  Does it matter that he was in Yemen, and not an “active battlefield” in a conventional hostilities sense?The US government does not accept the idea that the armed conflict with Al Qaeda — or armed conflict generally — is confined as a legal matter to some notion of “theatres of conflict” or “active battlefields” or related terms that have been used in recent years by academics and activist groups as though these were terms with recognized legal meanings.  As I understand the US government position, it sticks by the traditional concept of “hostilities” as the legal touchstone, and that where the hostiles go, the possibility of armed conflict goes too (I try to explain this evolution of these views in this short essay).  So the fact that he was present in Yemen does not make him beyond targeting, because he is not present in some “active” battlezone such as Afghanistan. This claim — the conflict follows the participants — frequently leads to a complaint that this means the US might target him in Paris or London.  The US position is that the standard for addressing non-state actor terrorists taking safe haven somewhere depends on whether the sovereign where the terrorist is hiding is “unwilling or unable” to address the threat.  No, there won’t be Predators Over Paris; Yemen or Somalia is another matter, as President Obama has repeatedly and without cavil said in speeches over the last few years.  And indeed, as the President said in his statement yesterday on the raid - no safe havens anywhere. By whom can he be targeted?  The military or the CIA? US domestic law provides authority for the President to direct either the US military, or the CIA, or both acting together, to undertake the use of force abroad.  In this case, it appears from first reports that the operation was “directed” by the CIA — presumably on account of intelligence roles — and carried out operationally by the military.  As I have said on other occasions (and, heads-up, Robert Chesney is finishing an important new paper on this topic) I think there are important ways in which the legal authorities, oversight and reporting, and other activities associated with an intermingling of CIA and military special operations should be re-examined.  One in particular is some way of recognizing a category of “deniable” operations that are not truly covert. US citizenship?  What difference, if any, does being a US citizen make? The fact of US citizenship is the factor in this situation that has most excited the blogosphere.  Insofar as Al-Aulaqi was targeted for taking operational part in groups engaged in armed conflict with the United States, historically the fact of citizenship has been neither here nor there.  That’s the easy answer — essentially just asserting the existence of the armed conflict like any other — and as a legal basis for targeting, I think the US government is on solid ground if that’s its claim.  Al-Aulaqi has entered into operational roles with a group acting in armed conflict with the United States, and is targetable on that basis, and citizenship has historically been no bar to attack.  To reiterate what is said above: in order to reach the conclusion that he is targetable, the US government has been very careful to rely not upon “internet preacher shooting his mouth off,” but instead on distinct operational roles.
|