Americans Are Reluctant To Kill One of Their Citizens with a Drone

The American administration is in full debate about the possibility of killing an American expat, living in Pakistan, who is suspected of being a member of al-Qaida. Barack Obama is looking to legally justify this targeted attack.

Does an American terrorist have more rights than a terrorist of another nationality? The Obama administration is currently pondering the possibility of killing, with the help of a drone, an American expat suspected of being a member of al-Qaida. This man, whose identity has not been revealed, is currently in Pakistan, The New York Times reported. According to those in charge, speaking anonymously, he is already “directly responsible” for the death of American citizens and is planning other attacks, for which handmade bombs would be used.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has already killed four of its citizens in this manner, in particular, in Sept. 2011, Imam al-Awlaki. Born in 1961 on American soil, he established himself in Yemen; in that country, he became an influential member of al-Qaida. As announced by Fox News, the man whose execution is presently being considered was in contact with him before his departure from the U.S.

Legal Uncertainty

Behind the question of eliminating an American citizen loom the limits of “the war against terror.” After the attacks in 2001, the United States equipped itself with increased power to strike its enemies. It assumes the authorization to target terrorists, wherever they are in the world and whatever their nationality. The Bush administration introduced this custom and Obama followed it. The current president would have given the green light to numerous drone shootings that killed hundreds, even thousands, of people.

In May 2013, however, Barack Obama announced that he wished to regulate this practice. The obscurity of the decision-making process regarding the use of these drones, and the amount of damage caused to local populations, was therefore highly criticized in the United States.

However, things have changed little since then. The legality of American executions is always under debate. Many organizations believe that the government oversteps the legal limits in avoiding bringing the wrongdoers before a tribunal. They believe that the American president assumes the role of “judge, jury and executioner.” More broadly speaking, those in opposition to drones argue that the “collateral damage” will only serve to maintain local fury against the United States and will give form to the next generation of jihadis.

On the other hand, voices are raised in favor of establishing, once and for all, the legality of the attacks. “Individuals who would have previously been removed from the battlefield by U.S. counterterrorism operations for attacking or plotting against U.S. interests remain free because of self-imposed red tape,” Republican Congressman Mike Roger criticized.

A Terrorist as an Isolated Sniper

Barack Obama set the terms that he believed had to be addressed in this type of situation. “When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.” The secretaries of justice and defense are in the process of producing reports to show that the American terrorist target well and truly falls within this category.