By Cora Currier

Drone Strikes Test Legal Grounds For War On Terror

February 6, 2013 1:04 pm Category: Memo Pad 2 Comments A+ / A-
Drone Strikes Test Legal Grounds For War On Terror

by Cora Currier, ProPublica.

In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama declared that “a decade of war is now ending.” White House press secretary Jay Carney later said there was “no question” that the U.S. conflict with al Qaeda was “entering a new phase.”

That day in Yemen, a U.S. drone strike reportedly killed three suspected al Qaeda militants. It was one of several strikes there that week and followed a spate of them in Pakistan. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said this weekend that drone strikes “ought to continue to be a tool we ought to use where necessary.”

Like the war in Afghanistan, these and hundreds of other drone strikes have occurred under the authority of a concise law passed one week after 9/11. It reads:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That law — known as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF — is now more than 11 years old. Will it cover this “new phase” of war?

Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, has claimed that the 2001 authorization is the domestic legal basis of the authority to kill and detain not only members of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan but also their “associated forces.” Courts have largely agreed with that interpretation, and in 2011 Congress codified it in authorizing military detention.

A Justice Department memopublished Monday by NBC News — repeatedly cites Congress’ authorization in laying out the case for targeting a U.S. citizen “who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or an associated force.”

Officials note the AUMF does not have a geographic boundary. Individuals far from the “hot” battlefield in Afghanistan, officials have argued, can still be said to be engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S.

But legal scholars say the AUMF’s authority to detain and kill militants may be undermined if there is no “core” al Qaeda group to speak of, or when active conflict in Afghanistan ends.  It may also falter when it isn’t clear exactly how a group or individual is tied to al Qaeda – such as in the web of militant and extremist groups operating in Africa and elsewhere that may claim an affiliation or be ideologically aligned.

“There’s room for shoe-horning them into the AUMF,” says Robert Chesney, a professor at University of Texas School of Law. “But any honest assessment has to concede it’s not obvious that all the more loosely affiliated groups are encompassed.”

The AUMF doesn’t include an expiration date. But the law does have its limits, says Chesney. “It’s not claiming an armed conflict with all terrorism, but with al Qaeda and its associated forces. In theory, there can come an end.”

Last November, shortly before he stepped down as the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson gave a speech on that end. He spoke of a “tipping point,” when the U.S. counterterrorism efforts “should no longer be considered an ‘armed conflict’ against al Qaeda and its associated forces.” Counterterrorism efforts would then be aimed against individuals and could be handled primarily by law enforcement.

Johnson conceded it was hard to imagine that tipping point. There would be no “peace treaty” to mark it, he said, and he could “offer no prediction about when this conflict will end.”

A preview of the dilemma came in 2011, when the U.S. indicted a Somali man named Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame in federal court in New York. Warsame was a member of Al-Shabaab, a group in Somalia, and had ties to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but he was not connected to any plot against the U.S. He had initially been held by the military, but according to Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman, the Obama administration was unsure where he fit under the law.

Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel for President Bush in 2003 and 2004, says “the AUMF is losing its efficacy. We’re in a place when we’re engaged in types of warfare that the nation hasn’t openly debated.”

The “shoehorn” approach may eventually run into a legal gray area. Chesney points out that court decisions upholding military detention have generally been linked in some way to the conflict in Afghanistan. (So far, U.S. courts have not taken up lawsuits challenging targeted killing.)

“When the war in Afghanistan ends, and if core al Qaeda is decimated, how do we define who we are at war with?” says Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Shamsi argues that the Obama administration is already relying on an overbroad interpretation of the AUMF to justify strikes against alleged militants in Yemen or Somalia without demonstrating precisely how they are associated with al Qaeda or engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities.

Pages →  1 2

Drone Strikes Test Legal Grounds For War On Terror Reviewed by on . by Cora Currier, ProPublica. In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama declared that "a decade of war is now ending." White House press secretary by Cora Currier, ProPublica. In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama declared that "a decade of war is now ending." White House press secretary Rating:

More by Cora Currier

RAF Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System

6 Months After Obama Promised To Divulge More On Drones, Here’s What We Still Don’t Know

by Cora Currier, ProPublica. Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted killings. In a speech, Obama vowed that the U.S. would only use force against a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people.” It would fire only when there was “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed or

Read more...

U.S. Marine

Who Are We At War With? That’s Classified

by Cora Currier, ProPublica, July 26, 2013. In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret. At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked

Read more...

Honor Bound Tower 427x321

Hunger Strikes And Indefinite Detention: A Rundown On What’s Going On At Gitmo

by Cora Currier, ProPublica It’s been 11 years since the first detainees were brought to Guantánamo Bay. But the future of the prison, and the fate of the men inside it, is far from certain.  With 59 detainees at Gitmo currently on hunger strike, by the military’s count, here’s a primer on what’s going at

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • sunmusing

    One of the reasons for some of the skittishness on drones is coming from the fear of the drones being used against us, within the borders of the USofA….this is being done now, and quietly…with more coming…we have no assurances from our government that these drones will not be abused on We the People…drones are really good at what they are being used for…and there are real concerns (NDAA, and the Patriot Act) driving this paranoia…and a fear of being vaporized at your backyard bbq by mistake….or malicious intent…or whatever…point is…the Constitution is being Vaporized by fear…of a distant enemy….and we call ourselves “exceptional”.

  • m8lsem

    One thing I’ve read as criticisms of the use of drones is the phenomenon of what’s euphemistically labeled ‘collateral damage.’ I would only submit as a precaution for the rest of the inevitable comments, that collateral damage from drones is a minor percentage of the collateral damage that occurs with aircraft dropping bombs, artillery use against forces inside communities, and even infantry attack upon forces in a settlement with mortars and machine guns, and even careful use of rifles when dealing with an enemy not in a uniform.

scroll to top