FANDOM


File:081131-F-7734Q-001.jpg

Targeted killing is the intentional killing, by a government or its agents, of a targeted person, whom they may consider an "unlawful combatant", who is not in their custody.[citation needed] The target is a person who is allegedly taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has allegedly lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.[1] Note that this is a different term and concept from that of "targeted violence" as used by specialists who study violence. Critics have described it a violation of international law, and a contravention of domestic laws.[2]

Early HistoryEdit

In Central and South AmericaEdit

In 1986, the human rights group Americas Watch released a report stating that death squads and armed forces under President José Napoleón Duarte in El Salvador had carried out 240 targeted killings throughout 1985.[3] The report relied upon figures provided by the Roman Catholic Church and included allegations of torture and summary executions.[3] Americas Watch and other rights groups reported "targeted killing" of civilians by the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in the following year during its campaign against the Contras.[4] Politically motivated targeted killings of trade unionists and activists were also recorded in Costa Rica[5] Haiti[6] and Colombia[7] during the late 1980s and 1990s.

The United States Department of State's Human Rights Report in 1994 decried such killings, noting that in Haiti, "right-wing thugs, closely allied with the military, assassinated the legitimately appointed justice minister and conducted many other targeted killings."[8]

Targeted killings linked to the drug trade and paramilitary organizations including FARC and the AUC resulted in large numbers of deaths among human rights and political activists, and women and children, throughout the 1990s.[8]

By drug cartelsEdit

Referring to killings by drug cartels in Washington, D.C., mayor Marion Barry infamously stated, "Washington should not be called the murder capital of the world. We are the targeted-killing capital of the world."[9] Barry went on to explain that "targeted killings" by D.C.'s cartels were comparable to those during the days of "Al Capone and Eliot Ness" at the time of Prohibition in the United States.[10] Similarly, drug-related "mob hits" in Moscow were euphemistically described as "targeted killings" by the Cox News Service and Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the 1990s.[11]

In Somalia and RwandaEdit

During fighting in the Somali Civil War, Sean Devereux described torture and killing by warlords in Kismayo as "targeted killings, a kind of ethnic cleansing," shortly before his assassination.[12] Also in Africa, Reuters described "targeted killings of political opponents" by Hutu army and militias in Rwanda during the Rwandan Genocide.[10] The American State Department reported the "politically targeted killings" were a prelude general massacres in Rwanda.[13]

In Bosnia, Serbia and CroatiaEdit

Referring to human rights abuses during the Bosnian War, the U.S. State Department noted politically or ethnically motivated "targeted killings" in Bosnia in Section 1a., "Political and Other Extrajudicial Killing," of its 1993 report on human rights practices in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[14] Targeted killings were also reported by Serbian and Albanian forces during the Kosovo War.[15] Both wars involved largescale targeted killings of journalists.[16]

Use by the Israeli GovernmentEdit

First IntifadaEdit

During the First Intifada Palestinian uprising, the Palestinian human rights group Al Haq condemned Israeli soldiers for what they described as "deliberate, cold-blooded... targeted" killings of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[17] Human rights group Middle East Watch alleged in 1993 that interviewed Israeli soldiers had targeted often unarmed Palestinians, some under the age of 16, for "premeditated assassinations" or targeted killing, a charge denied by Israeli officials.[18] The allegations included the execution of Palestinians in custody.[18]

Second IntifadaEdit

Controversy over targeted killings continued during the Second Intifada. Palestinians charged that individuals belonging to the group Hamas and shot in targeted killings were being assassinated.[19] Israeli officials initially accepted responsibility for only some of the killings, and Israeli media termed the practice a "liquidations policy," whereas Palestinians called it "state terrorism."[20] In January 2001 Israeli officials confirmed "the practice of targeted assassinations."[21] Conflict in Israeli over the legality of the practice centered on the case of Dr. Thabet Thabet, assassinated as he left his home on New Year's Eve. Dr. Thabet was alleged by the Israeli military to be a senior local leader of Fatah and plotting attacks against Israelis in the West Bank. A dentist, Dr. Thabet was also a friend of many Israeli peace activists and considered to be one himself; Israeli activists called the killing "a crime," "Mafia-style," and "immoral." Ephraim Sneh, then Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, described the policy as "effective, precise and just."[21]

The Washington Post commented that Israeli policy of targeted killing during the Second Intifada expanded upon previous policies, targeting not only terrorists but also those thought to direct or coordinate them.[21] Another controversial killing, which occurred following the Bush Administration's condemnation of the practice, was that of Mahmoud Madani, a leader of Hamas shot while leaving a mosque in the Balata refugee camp. The Israeli military suspected Madani of plotting bombings in Israel.[22]

Opposition by the United StatesEdit

At that time, spokesman for the American State Department Richard Boucher condemned both violence by Palestinians and targeted killings by Israelis during a State Department news briefing.[23] American Secretary of State Colin Powell registered his opposition to "a policy of targeted killings" and the U.S. State Department urged Israel to stop them.[24]

Then Democratic Party senator Joseph Biden criticized the Bush Administration for condemning the targeted killings; the administration continued to oppose them.[25]

Use by the United States GovernmentEdit

BackgroundEdit

Targeted killing has been used by governments around the world, and has become a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel.[1][26]

The tactic raises complex questions as to the legal basis for its application, who qualifies as an appropriate "hit list" target, and what circumstances must exist before the tactic may be employed.[1] Opinions range from people considering it a legal form of self-defense that reduces terrorism, to people calling it an extrajudicial killing that lacks due process, and which leads to more violence.[1][27][28][29] Methods used have included firing a Hellfire missile from an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (Israel), or a Predator or Reaper drone (an unmanned, remote-controlled plane), detonating a cell phone bomb, and long-range sniper shooting. Countries such as the U.S. (in Pakistan and Yemen) and Israel (in the West Bank and Gaza) have used targeted killing to kill members of groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[1]

In early 2010, with President Obama's approval, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011.[30][31][32]

Obama Administration position on combat dronesEdit

The United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat.

John O. Brennan in his 2012-04-30 speech "The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy"[33]

In a speech titled "The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy"[33] John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, outlined on April 30, 2012 at the Wilson Center[34] the use of combat drones to kill members of al-Qaeda by the US Federal government under President Barack Obama.[35] John Brennan acknowledged for the first time[36][37] that the US government uses drones to kill selected members of al-Qaeda.[38]

He justified the use of drones both from domestic law and international law point of view. With respect to domestic law Brennan stated that "as a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. The Authorization for Use of Military Force—the AUMF—passed by Congress after the September 11th attacks authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qa’ida to Afghanistan."[33] And he further said: "As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."[33]

The speech came a few days after Obama authorized the CIA and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence “signatures” — patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests. Under the previous rules the CIA and the US military was only allowed to use drone strikes against known terrorist leaders whose location could be confirmed and who appeared on secret CIA and JSOC target lists.[39]

The justification by Brennan built upon remarks by US top officials like the United States Department top lawyer Harold Hongju Koh,[40] US Attorney General Eric Holder,[41][42] the US Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson[43] and President Obama himself[44] who defended the use of drones outside of so-called "hot battlefields" like Afghanistan.[45]

In 2011/2012 the process for selecting targets outside of warzones was altered so that power was concentrated within a group of people in the White House around White House counterterror chief John Brennan. Under the new plan, Brennan's staff compiles the potential target list and runs the names past agencies such as the State Department at a weekly White House meeting.[46] According to the New York Times President Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, reserving the final say on approving lethal action, and signs off every strike in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.[47]

U.S. Congressional oversight over the targeted killing operations intensified as the drone program intensified under Obama Administration. Once a month, a group of staff members from the House and Senate intelligence committees watch videos of the latest drone strikes, review intelligence that was used to justify each drone strike and sometimes examine telephone intercepts and after-the-fact evidence, such as the CIA's assessment of who was hit. The procedure used by House and Senate intelligence committees to monitor CIA drone strikes was set up largely at the request of Senator Dianne Feinstein who became determined to ensure that it was as precise as the CIA had been claiming. "That's been a concern of mine from the beginning," Feinstein said in little-noticed comments after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011. "I asked that this effort be established. It has been. The way in which this is being done is very careful."[48] Feinstein explained how the oversight works in general. "We receive notification with key details shortly after every strike, and we hold regular briefings and hearings on these operations," Feinstein wrote in May in a letter sent in response to a column that ran in The Los Angeles Times questioning the oversight of drone strikes. "Committee staff has held 28 monthly in-depth oversight meetings to review strike records and question every aspect of the program including legality, effectiveness, precision, foreign policy implications and the care taken to minimize noncombatant casualties." If the congressional committees objected to something, the lawmakers could call CIA leaders to testify in closed investigative hearings. If unsatisfied, they could pass legislation limiting the CIA's actions.[48]

Congressional criticism of drone strikes has been rare. But in June 2012, 26 lawmakers, all but two of them Democrats, signed a letter to Obama questioning so-called signature strikes, in which the U.S. attacks armed men who fit a pattern of behavior that suggests they are involved in terrorist activities. Signature strikes have been curbed in Pakistan, where they once were common, but in 2012 Obama gave the CIA permission to conduct them in Yemen, where an Al Qaeda affiliate that has targeted the United States has established a safe haven in the south. The lawmakers expressed concern that signature strikes could kill civilians. They added: "Our drone campaigns already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight."[48]

While the Bush administration had put emphasis on killing significant members of al Qaeda the use of combat drones has undergone a quiet and unheralded shift during the Obama Administration to focus increasingly on killing Taliban foot soldiers according to CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen.[49] Bergen noted: "To the extent that the targets of drone attacks can be ascertained, under Bush, al Qaeda members accounted for 25% of all drone targets compared to 40% for Taliban targets. Under Obama, only 8% of targets were al Qaeda compared to just over 50% for Taliban targets."[49]

LegalityEdit

Legal justifications for targeted killingEdit

Georgetown Law Professor and former U.S. Marine, Gary Solis, has argued that under certain conditions, "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts."[50] For Solis, these conditions require that there is an ongoing military conflict, the targeted individual (civilian or military) has taken up arms, that there is no reasonable possibility of arrest, and that the decision to kill is made by senior political leaders.[1]

Abraham Sofaer, a former legal advisor to the U.S. State Department and fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank, has written that targeted killing is "sometimes necessary, because leaders are obliged to defend their citizens." After the killing of Hamas founder and quadriplegic Ahmed Yassin by Israeli helicopter gunships, Sofaer argued that targeted killing is not prohibited by American Executive Order 11905 banning assassination: "killings in self-defense are no more 'assassinations' in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers."[51]

Sofaer had previously argued during the First Gulf War that targeted killing was ethical but impractical: "Targeted killing will also invite revenge against the leaders who order it as well as their citizens and property. Given the legal, political and moral constraints that limit such activities in democratic regimes, the United States has a substantial interest in discouraging acceptance of the killing of political leaders as a routine measure, even in self-defense."</ref>[52]

Author and former U.S. Army Captain Matthew J. Morgan has argued that "there is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing.... targeted killing [is] not synonymous with assassination. Assassination ... constitutes an illegal killing."[53][54] Amos Guiora, formerly an Israeli Defense Forces Lt. Colonol and commander of the IDF school of military law, now Professor of law at the University of Utah, has written that "targeted killing is ... not an assassination". Steve David, Johns Hopkins Associate Dean & Professor of International Relations, writes: "there are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination". Syracuse Law Professor William Banks and GW Law Professor Peter Raven-Hansen write: "Targeted killing of terrorists is ... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination". Rory Miller writes: "Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination'", and Associate Professor Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale write: "Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination".[55][56][57][57][58]

Legal oppositionEdit

During the 1998 bombing of Iraq, The Scotsman reported that "US law prohibits the targeted killing of foreign leaders... Administration officials have been careful to say they will not expressly aim to kill Saddam."[59]

The American Civil Liberties Union states in its website, "A program of targeted killing far from any battlefield, without charge or trial, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process. It also violates international law, under which lethal force may be used outside armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats, when non-lethal means are not available. Targeting people who are suspected of terrorism for execution, far from any war zone, turns the whole world into a battlefield." [60] Yael Stein, the research director of B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, also states in her article "By Any Name Illegal and Immoral: Response to 'Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing'":

The argument that this policy affords the public a sense of revenge and retribution could serve to justify acts both illegal and immoral. Clearly, lawbreakers ought to be punished. Yet, no matter how horrific their deeds, as the targeting of Israeli civilians indeed is, they should be punished according to the law. David’s arguments could, in principle, justify the abolition of formal legal systems altogether.
[61] Ibrahim Nafie, writing in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly in 2001, criticized the U.S. for agreeing with "the Israeli spin that calls ... its official policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders 'targeted killing.'"[62]

On 30 May 2012, 'David S' protested targeted killing by using the "We The People" public petition service of whitehouse.gov to ask the US Government to "Create a Do Not Kill List".[63]Template:Verification needed

See alsoEdit

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

ReferencesEdit

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87088-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=6FKf0ocxEPAC&pg=PA542&dq=%22targeted+killing%22&hl=en&ei=WJnrS4_NE8KB8gbTm_zQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22targeted%20killing%22&f=false. Retrieved May 19, 2010. 
  2. Sauer, Frank/Schoernig Niklas, 2012: Killer drones: The ‘silver bullet’ of democratic warfare?, in: Security Dialogue 43 (4): 363-380, http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/43/4/363.abstract, last accessed September 1, 2012.
  3. 3.0 3.1 UPI (29 May 1986). "Rights group reports on abuses in El Salvador". United Press International. 
  4. Samantha Sparks (5 November 1987). "Nicaragua: rights group charges government, contra abuse". Inter Press Services. 
  5. James LeMoyne (20 March 1988). "Show of force in Central America; The Region's Fate Is Not In Washington's Hands". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/20/weekinreview/show-of-force-in-central-america-the-region-s-fate-is-not-in-washington-s-hands.html. Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  6. Kathie Klarreich (12 August 1988). "Haiti's cry for help". Christian Science Monitor. 
  7. Commission of the European Communities (3 May 1999). "Colombia: European Commission approves humanitarian aid worth euro 6.5 million". Rapid. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 Hearing of the International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (1 February 1994). "Capitol Hill hearing with Defense Department personnel". Federal News Service. 
  9. Michael York (24 March 1989). "Barry Describes Turner As 'Outstanding' Chief; Retirement Talk Said Not Under Pressure". The Washington Post. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1181502.html. Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 Phil Gailey (27 March 1989). "The capital of killings: Drug-related crime exploding in D.C.". St. Petersburg Times (Florida). 
  11. Charles C Holmes (31 August 1997). "Focus on Russia's Capital: a new age of uncertainty". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 
  12. Rosie Millard (12 November 1994). "The making of a Saint". The Times. 
  13. 1994 Human Rights Report (March 1994). "Rwanda Human Rights Practices, 1994". Department of State Dispatch. 
  14. Department of State (March 1993). "BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Human Rights Practices, 1992". Department of State Dispatch. 
  15. Jane Perlez (28 January 1999). "US pushes plans to end fighting in Serb province". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/28/world/us-pushes-plan-to-end-fighting-in-serb-province.html. Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  16. Niccolo Sarno (22 December 1999). "Rights: Journalists "first target" in conflicts, IFJ says". Inter Press Service. 
  17. Xinhua (20 February 1990). "Israeli soldiers condemned for wilful killings of palestinians". Xinhua General News Service. 
  18. 18.0 18.1 AFP (29 June 1993). "Undercover troops have "licence to kill" Palestinians: rights group". Agence France Presse. 
  19. Mark Lavie (14 December 2000). "Israelis kill Palestinian in a car; Palestinians call it an assassination". Associated Press. 
  20. Jennifer Ludden (2 January 2001). "Israel's policy of targeted assassinations of alleged militant palestinians". National Public Radio. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Keith B. Richburg (8 January 2001). "Israelis Confirm Assassinations Used as Policy; Key Palestinians Targeted". Washington Post. 
  22. AP (20 February 2001). "Key Hamas Leader is Slain". Associated Press. 
  23. Barry Schweid (13 February 2001). "Sharon emissaries hold talks with Bush administration officials". Associated Press Worldstream. 
  24. Barry Schweid (14 February 2001). "Bush urges Mideast parties to end violence". Associated Press. 
  25. Janine Zacharia (3 August 2001). "Sen. Biden defends targeted killings". Jerusalem. 
  26. "Q&A: Targeted Killings", Eben Kaplan, The New York Times, January 25, 2006. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
  27. Abraham D. Sofaer (March 26, 2004). "Responses to Terrorism / Targeted killing is a necessary option". The San Francisco Chronicle. http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-26/opinion/17416329_1_self-defense-killings-deadly-force. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  28. Dana Priest (November 8, 2002). "U.S. Citizen Among Those Killed In Yemen Predator Missile Strike". The Tech (MIT); The Washington Post. http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/long4-54.54w.html. Retrieved May 19, 2010. 
  29. Mohammed Daraghmeh (February 20, 2001). "Hamas Leader Dies in Apparent Israeli Targeted Killing". Times Daily. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e08gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YckEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1426,2445697&dq=targeted-killing&hl=en. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  30. Frank Gardner (2011-09-30). "BBC News - Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen". Bbc.co.uk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  31. Greg Miller (January 31, 2010). "U.S. citizen in CIA's cross hairs". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/31/world/la-fg-cia-awlaki31-2010jan31. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  32. Greg Miller (April 7, 2010). "Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 John O. Brennan (30 April 2012). "The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy". Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  34. "White House in first detailed comments on drone strikes". BBC News. 30 April 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17901400. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  35. Savage, Charlie (30 April 2012). "Top U.S. Security Official Says ‘Rigorous Standards’ Are Used for Drone Strikes". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/world/obamas-counterterrorism-aide-defends-drone-strikes.html?_r=1. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  36. Miller, Greg (30 April 2012). "Brennan speech is first Obama acknowledgment of use of armed drones". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/brennan-speech-is-first-obama-acknowledgement-of-use-of-armed-drones/2012/04/30/gIQAq7B4rT_story.html. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  37. Mark Schone and Muhammad Lila. "Brennan Defends Drone Strikes as Pakistan and Protestor Object". ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/brennan-defends-drone-strikes-pakistan-protestor-object/story?id=16244896. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  38. Julian E. Barnes (20 April 2012). "U.S. Shifts Policy on Secrecy of Drone Use". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577376141668874580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  39. Miller, Greg (26 April 2012). "White House approves broader Yemen drone campaign". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-approves-broader-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/25/gIQA82U6hT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  40. Hosenball, Mark (26 March 2010). "Obama Administration Official Publicly Defends Drone Attacks". The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/declassified/2010/03/26/obama-administration-official-publicly-defends-drone-attacks.html. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  41. Richard A. Serrano and Andrew R. Grimm (5 March 2012). "Eric Holder: U.S. can target citizens overseas in terror fight". The Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/05/news/la-pn-eric-holder-terrorism-awlaki-20120305. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  42. "Holder defends killings of American citizens overseas as part of war on terrorism". Associated Press. Fox News. 5 March 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/holder-defends-killings-american-citizens-overseas-in-war-on-terrorism/. Retrieved 17 August 2012. 
  43. Savage, Charlie (22 February 2012). "Pentagon Says U.S. Citizens With Terrorism Ties Can Be Targeted in Strikes". The New York Times. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/pentagon-says-u-s-citizens-with-terrorism-ties-can-be-targeted-in-strikes/. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  44. "Obama defends US drone strikes in Pakistan". 31 January 2012. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16804247. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  45. Stone, Andreas (30 April 2012). "John Brennan, White House Counterterrorism Chief, Defends Drone Strikes [UPDATE"]. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/john-brennan-drone-strikes_n_1464989.html?ref=elections-2012. Retrieved 1 May 2012. 
  46. Dozier, Kimberly (21 May 2012). "Who will drones target? Who in the US will decide?". Associated Press. salon.com. http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/who_will_drones_target_who_in_the_us_will_decide/. Retrieved 7 July 2012. 
  47. Jo Becker and Scott Shane (29 May 2012). "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all. Retrieved 15 July 2012. 
  48. 48.0 48.1 48.2 Dilanian, Ken (25 June 2012). "Congress keeps closer watch on CIA drone strikes". The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-na-drone-oversight-20120625,0,7967691,full.story. Retrieved 7 July 2012. 
  49. 49.0 49.1 Peter Bergen and Megan Braun (6 September 2012). "Drone is Obama's weapon of choice". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html?iid=article_sidebar. Retrieved 9 September 2012. 
  50. The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War - Gary D. Solis - Google Books. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=6FKf0ocxEPAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Law+of+Armed+Conflict:+International+Humanitarian+Law+in+War&hl=en&ei=KXz_S522EIOclgfB-8n6CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  51. Targeted killing is a necessary option, Sofaer, Abraham D., Hoover Institution, March 26, 2004
  52. Abarham D. Sofaer (18 February 1991). "Thinking past the moment". U.S. News & World Report. 
  53. The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day that Changed Everything? - Google Boeken. Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=QP1Bq7HVQtwC&dq=The+Impact+of+9/11+and+the+New+Legal+Landscape:+The+Day+That+Changed+Everything&source=gbs_navlinks_s. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  54. Matthew J. Morgan (2009). The Impact of 9–11: The New Legal Landscape. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-60838-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=QP1Bq7HVQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Impact+of+9/11+and+the+New+Legal+Landscape:+The+Day+That+Changed+Everything&source=bl&ots=wJJzz_X2WQ&sig=dfBVA1xydinRGtvSn5-3KbQloGs&hl=en&ei=2szrS6WOK4Sdlgenq-y1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=major%20difference%20between%20assassination%20and%20targeted%20killing&f=false. Retrieved May 29, 2010. 
  55. Amos Guiora (2004). "Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense". 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 31920. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cwrint36&div=20&id=&page=. Retrieved May 29, 2010. 
  56. Steven R. David (September 2002). "Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy Of Targeted Killing" (PDF). The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. http://biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/david.pdf. Retrieved May 29, 2010. 
  57. 57.0 57.1 Rory Miller (2007). Ireland and the Middle East: trade, society and peace. Irish Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-7165-2868-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=i5lnAAAAMAAJ&q=assassination+%22targeted+killing%22&dq=assassination+%22targeted+killing%22&hl=en&ei=9dDrS8z2JIH7lwf_84i1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CGAQ6AEwDA. Retrieved May 29, 2010. 
  58. "Targeted Killing and Assassination: The U.S. Legal Framework", Banks, William C., Raven-Hansen, Peter, 37 U. Rich. L. Rev. 667 (2002–03). Retrieved October 89, 2010.
  59. Louise Branson (14 November 1998). "Campaign to eliminate Saddam gains speed". The Scotsman. 
  60. "Frequently Asked Questions About Targeting Killing | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. 2010-08-30. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/frequently-asked-questions-about-targeting-killing. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  61. url=http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/17_1/debate/860.html
  62. Ibrahim Nafie (October 31, 2001). "Opinion | The very model of a rogue state". Al-Ahram Weekly. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/557/op1.htm. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  63. "We the People: Your Voice in Our Government | The White House". .whitehouse.gov. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/create-do-not-kill-list/HwqFwRtG. Retrieved June 5, 2012. 

Further reading Edit

This list is in chronological order broken down by publication areas

Journals
Newspapers
NGOs
Government and UN reports

Template:War on Terrorismde:Gezielte Tötung es:Asesinato selectivo fa:قتل هدفمند ur:تہدّفی قتل

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.