Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
In the New York Times today comes a story about a nascent rift in the Obama administration concerning the war on terror.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s legal team is split over how much latitude the United States has to kill Islamist militants in Yemen and Somalia, a question that could define the limits of the war against Al Qaeda and its allies, according to administration and Congressional officials.
The debate, according to officials familiar with the deliberations, centers on whether the United States may take aim at only a handful of high-level leaders of militant groups who are personally linked to plots to attack the United States or whether it may also attack the thousands of low-level foot soldiers focused on parochial concerns: controlling the essentially ungoverned lands near the Gulf of Aden, which separates the countries.
The dispute over limits on the use of lethal force in the region — whether from drone strikes, cruise missiles or commando raids — has divided the State Department and the Pentagon for months, although to date it remains a merely theoretical disagreement. Current administration policy is to attack only “high-value individuals” in the region, as it has tried to do about a dozen times.
But the unresolved question is whether the administration can escalate attacks if it wants to against rank-and-file members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, and the Somalia-based Shabab.
This story, unfortunately, again reveals the Obama administration's reluctance to attack al Qaeda as aggressively as possible. Under the laws of war, the United States can pursue any member of the enemy. There is little doubt that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been the source of attempted attacks against the United States; in fact, it is considered by U.S. intelligence to be a greater threat to the U.S. than the original al Qaeda group hiding in western Pakistan. Congress has authorized the President to use force against every group responsible for or connected to the 9-11 attacks. To be sure, we shouldn't waste resources against every al Qaeda mope on the street. But the Obama administration could not do worse than voluntarily refrain from attacking al Qaeda members because of concerns about legality, rather than whether the benefits outweigh the costs, in the middle of a war.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
Is it not passing strange that after nearly three years the Administration should still be undecided as to whether this is warfare or “lawfare” in which it’s engaged? Even if the latter, prosecutors don’t restrict themselves to only arresting mob bosses, even though foot soldiers merely are a way of getting to the higher-ups. What exactly is State’s point (which is to say former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh’s point)? Is it somehow ethical to only kill the bosses, as though we were trading lighter and heavier sentences based on levels of culpability? But of course there is no light sentence in war unless you are grabbing POWs, which we are not. The logic seems to go in circles, no?
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
John, don't you think that the Obama administration's ideas on the War on Terror will suddenly get a little looser and more Bush-like as the '12 campaign heats up? I certainly do.
Sep '10
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
In my view the Obama administration is doing a far more aggressive job targeting Al Qaeda targets than the Bush people even dreamed of doing. The sheer number of drone attacks tell me they have dramatically loosened the rules of engagement. Apparently someone is smart enough not to listen to the lawyers. A number of the Al Qaeda suspects in Yemen were released by Bush from GITMO. When given a chance to fight Bush chose to do his fighting from a bar stool in a stateside O-club. He did not do much better as Commander in Chief. Allowing only one terrorist attack that killed 3K people in eight years is not impressive to me.
May '11
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
Red Herring Alert....... :)
May '11
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
I really wish it was possible to do that, even just from time to time, if you put on the black turban, and be a thug on the street, without warning, you become a grease spot.
Like when I used to play hockey, we were taught that every time ANYONE on the other team touched the puck you checked them HARD, after a while they became shy to even touch the puck, this made them half a step slow a lot of the time and easy to beat. I do not know how that would be accomplished, but it would sure keep them guessing and looking over their shoulders. I can only imagine that with the top leaders been targeted, not many are stepping forward for that promotion....?
Nothing this regime does surprises me anymore, disappoints, yeah, but surprises, not anymore.
Domo
May '11
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
Rob, you are so cynical, but I happen to agree with you!
I think that if Obama could have gotten away with NOT taking out Osama until say the middle of October 2012, he would have done so. I would not be surprised to find out that is why it took him 16 hours to actually give the green light on the attack, he was beating the bushes to try to find a way to delay the attack, so it would be of better political use to him.
Domo
Edited on Sep 17, 2011 at 7:21amJul '11
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
It seems that the administration's split on positions revolves entirely around perceptions. That is, the bigger the target (like Bin Laden or a #2/#3/$ guy) is politically advantageous, so touchy subjects like "are we standing on firm legal ground?" are more easily batted aside in pursuit of political gain. The smaller the target, well, then we might have to read the rules of engagement more closely, in case it comes back to bite us, and we look "small" for violating sovereign(ish) soil in pursuit of a low- or mid-level guy.
In other words, it's political calculus, not war-fighting calculus. And that's the best Barry can do. It's all he's ever done. It's all he ever expects of in life. It's worked so far, so why should he change?
Oct '10
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
Could Prof. Yoo explain how assassinations (even if performed by remotely controlled aircraft and missiles) of individuals within the sovereign territory of countries with which the U.S. is not at war differs from those conducted by SAVAK against enemies of the Iranian state in the West during the reign of the Shah?
Might Prof. Yoo also discuss how flying an armed aircraft across the border of a sovereign nation with which the U.S. is not at war and launching a lethal projectile which detonates within its territory is not an act of aggressive war against that nation?
Oct '10
Re: Obama Administration Dawdles Over Legality of Killing Al Qaeda Militants in Arabian Peninsula
I too hope the Professor weighs in, as I’m no expert on the matter. But I’m quite certain that laws governing warfare do not allow hostile combatants to hide behind sovereignty or imaginary lines on a map (aka borders). It’s probably better to say: with sovereignty comes responsibility, such as not letting people use your territory to conduct hostilities against others. If you prove unable to control what goes on upon your sovereign territory, those subject to hostile actions emanating from it have the legal right to sort it out for you, to include the use of deadly force if that’s warranted on other grounds, such as proportionality. So, the US tracking down terrorists in Pakistan and dealing them deadly blows? No issue. Were we simply going after political opponents as SAVAK was, different situation altogether. And no one I’m aware of is making such claims, are they?