Targeted Killing - A twisted technology

 

  On Monday, May 2nd, “New York’s Ground Zero, long a place of almost unmitigated sorrow, fear, anger and contention, finally became one of celebration” as Gary Strauss and Rick Hampson from USA today reported (Hampson). President Obama reported that the head of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, was killed by American troops in Pakistan (Hampson). While it is well known that Osama Bin Laden planned the attacks, his killing still raises the question as to whether it is morally justifiable to kill a terrorist - even without a trial.

  There seems to be a wide consensus that the killing of Bin Laden is morally justified. In his article that was posted on MSNBC.com, Arthur Caplan, Ethics Professor at University of Pennsylvania, tries to find objective arguments for targeted killing, which is an intentional killing carried out by a government or its agents. One however only needs to read the first two comments below the article to grasp the underlying emotions of many of the American people. One comment reads: “Too bad we can only kill him once” and the second comment reads, “we should have insured he has no decedents to carry on his blood line...and that he didn't have any appendages to make use of those virgins” (Caplan, Arthur). The two commentators initially seem extreme, but in fact 80% of Americans support killing Osama Bin Laden over capturing him, according to a poll conducted by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) (Murray, Mark).

  Of course, the pain and suffering created by the terrorist attacks can hardly be put into words. In the 21st century however, with functioning legal systems, it is seems counterintuitive to apply the “eye for an eye” principle and to satisfy one’s anger with killing. Do not all parents tell their children not to revenge violence with violence?

  Expert on terrorism, Brian Jenkins, acknowledges that assassination has a certain, satisfying emotional appeal. This is because ongoing terrorist attacks frighten, frustrate and enrage people. And moreover, other counterterrorist measures, even if successful, will only pay off in years to come (Jenkins 2). But Jenkins also reminds us that the right to live is fundamental to our modern civilization, because everybody would otherwise have to fear to be killed around the corner. This most basic right opposes the right to kill, including killing a terrorist. Philosophers studied this dilemma thoroughly and developed a series of arguments for and against targeted killing: 

  On the one side of the discussion are utilitarians, who believe that an action is moral as long as it increases the total happiness in society. From this perspective, one could argue that killing Osama Bin Laden or killing any terrorist with a drone increases the world’s happiness, because the terrorist was, is and most likely will be responsible for unhappiness.

  Killing somebody is not that easily justified, claims Emeritus professor of Philosophy at Kent University Harold Zellner. He explains that increasing the world’s happiness alone does not serve as justification (Zellner 14). Consider the situation with three patients in a hospital, one [] a donor heart to survive the next day, the other a donor liver and the last one donor kidneys. Now, a fourth man, who does not have a family or job and is physically healthy, walks by the hospital. According to utilitarian logic, it would be justified to kill the fourth man and save the three patients. Three lives against one; the overall happiness would be increased and justify the hospital to kill the fourth man without him knowing what happens to him. However, intuitively we can say that the fourth’s man right to live should not be violated.Thus, the utilitarian argument alone does not weigh heavy enough to justify the killing. 

  Harold Zellner solves the problem with the utilitarian logic by substituting ‘increasing happiness’ with ‘decreasing evil’. A killing would be justified if it not only increases happiness, but eradicates much evil. This holds especially true in a situation where a person to be killed is responsible for the evil at the moment (Zellner 16). One could imagine a dictator like Hitler in the beginning of the Second World War. At the moment, Hitler was responsible for so much evil by launching war on other countries, furthering the holocaust and suppressing his own people, that killing him would have been morally justified. But is a terrorist who committed an attack long ago,  and is hiding for months if not years, at the moment of his assassination actively responsible for evil? A terrorist gone underground can hardly exert as much evil as an acting dictator, for whom Zellner actually constructed his arguments. And also, assassination may not be the only measure to reduce evil in the world.

This summer, the known Serbian war criminal Ratcom Mladic was arrested and brought to the international criminal court in Den Haag, Netherlands. He is now isolated in custody and has no opportunity to cause unhappiness. Also, the U.S.A. was successful in the past with isolating terrorists without having to kill them . In the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, at least more than 775 men are detained that are believed to be terrorists.

  There is another philosophical argument to consider though: That terrorists, in their actions, forfeited the right to live. According to Zellner “terrorists forfeit their right not to be killed, by having killed themselves” (17). If a person to be killed is identified as a terrorist who participated in or was partially responsible for an attack, the terrorist lost his right to live. On the other hand, who decides when somebody has lost the right to live, and who is empowered to conduct the targeted killing? Losing the right to live does not necessarily mean that another gains the right to kill. This  distinction between losing the right to live and acquiring the right to kill, is also fundamental to the question of capital punishment. Even if terrorists, murderers and rapists are convicted, does the state have the right to punish the convicts with a death sentence?

  Jessica Dovey, who was at the time an English teacher in Japan, answers ‘no’ on her Facebook page that was frequently quoted on Osama Bin Laden’s day of death : “I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.” By rejoicing in an enemy’s death, we lose our appreciation of life and the line between good and bad begins to blur. According to an article written by journalist Alexis Madrigal in The Atlantic, Dovey came up with her phrase after reading Orwell’s 1984, and particularly the part of the two minute hate, in which all employers of the fictional ministry come together and celebrate hate against the enemy (Madrigal). And just as the government in 1984 begins to use methods of terrorism against its own people, our own government becomes in the sense the ruthless terrorist by using targeted killing against what it subjectively deems ‘terrorist’. 

  Until now we have considered very theoretical concepts. Even if we find these philosophic arguments against targeted killing suffice to reject it, the ‘emotional appeal’ of assassination is still present. For parents, who will not see their child grow up, because it died in  one of the hijacked airplanes[] and for a wife, who lost her husband, because he jumped out of the [caps>world trade tower] in desperation, philosophic arguments can not weigh against the loss and suffering. Philosophy and pain created in the 9/11 attacks seem to belong to two different worlds. Despite the best theories, people will still long for the death of a terrorist. That is a weakness of philosophy. But, what would actually happen if we let the anger of some people transform into violence and targeted killing? Would we engage in targeted killing to make them pay for what they have done to us? Ironically, this sounds similar to Osama Bin Laden, who announced a new wave of violence in a video message broadcasted on Al-Jazeera TV in 2004, so that “they taste what we tasted and stop killing our women and children” (Bin Laden). 

As seen in the quote, for Bin Laden the 9/11 attacks come from a motivation to retaliate.

Both terrorists and the United States will kill in retaliation leading to a never ending spiral of violence. And even worse, if we grant a government full rights to assassination, the government could become the reason for suffering in the first place by turning his weapons against the own people. Another quote that could be put in the mouths of many illustrates this: “An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland ” (Weimer). One can easily envision former President George W. Bush exclaiming this after the attack on 9/11.

 

Similarly, it may suit a supporter of the Hamas party in Gaza talking about the Gaza strip as homeland and Israel as evil. This quote is translated from German and was said by Hitler after alleged communists burned down the German parliament building, says Professor Westley Weimer on his homepage. Using the argument of homeland security Nazis also used assassination as a means. That lead to some of the most cruel atrocities the world has seen in history. Maybe we trust our current administration to use assassination only in absolutely necessary cases, but do we trust the next one? No one can guarantee us that the next administration, blinded by hatred, does not turn its measures of ensuring homeland security against its own people. Therefore, no administration should have the ability to kill without a trial.

  From a philosophical and historical perspective it is not possible to justify targeted killing. But even if it was acceptable under narrow circumstances, targeted killing violates the very basis of the American justice system. It is stated in the 6th Amendment to the United States constitution that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” (Sixth). The drone technology as used by the United States undermines this law.These drones are unmanned aerial vehicle that are operated by the remote control of a navigator or move autonomously and may carry a lethal payload. By dropping a bomb on its target the drone certainly does not grant the persecuted the right to a trial. This also means that a drone could possibly kill an innocent man, as no trial can proof him innocent.

 

Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the Organization American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), points out that many prisoners in Guantanamo were found innocent of the crimes they were charged for (Targeted). "There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told Fox News. "Some have been there six or seven years" (Ex-Bush Official). If the troops can not distinguish between a real terrorist and a civilian within years, it is unlikely that the navigator observing targets through a camera installed at the bottom of the drone can tell civilians and terrorists apart in a matter of minutes.

  The most recent example of killing innocents is that of the accidental NATO attack on two Pakistani Border posts, which killed 24 innocent Pakistani soldiers in the end of November (Stewart).  Pakistani and US American statements diverge, but it seems that in the night of November 26th, two NATO helicopters launched an extensive attack on a boarder post at the Afghan-Pakistani border (Stewart). US President Barack Obama offered the president of Pakistan his condolences and results of a military inquiry is due December 24th. Whatever the reason for this deadly mistake, it caused a new low in the already fragile alliance between the US and Pakistan. It questions the ability of our troops to distinguish between terrorists, civilians and allied soldiers. Also, this is not a theoretical argument. 24 Pakistani families are left without a father and an income. Will these families be furious and will they also lust for retaliation as their counterparts in America? 

You bet.

  For the above reasons, a Special Commission of the United Nations is condemning the use of drone technology as the United States utilize it. “According to international law a government must have the right to use lethal violence in actual zones of armed conflict, but targeted killings usually happen far away from these zones,” explains human rights activist Jaffer. Furthermore, a government is only in very delimited circumstances allowed to use lethal force against civilians; if it is the last resort and if there is an imminent threat (Targeted).

  Therefore, drone attacks would only be justified by International law if the alleged terrorists are located in a region of armed conflict, are about to launch an attack on soldiers, and can not be detained or otherwise stopped to carry out their attack. This is not the case in most of the attacks, says Jameel Jaffer. 

And while the international community begins to criticize the United States more directly, US drones and helicopters continue to attack. If the United States do not stop violating international law, the US is losing its integrity when calling for human rights in China or Russia. In fact, if nobody would regard international law regulating security of civilians, who could stop China launching an attack on a US citizen on US territory that China considers a terrorist?

  Yet, proponents of targeted killing argue that beyond the fundamental and more theoretic issues raised, assassination is pragmatically beneficial. Taking out leading terrorists could weaken the terrorist cells, argues expert Brian Jenkins. He acknowledges, however, that this might only be a temporary effect. A new leader could take the former’s place reducing the effect of the killing. After Bin Laden’s death, Saif Al-Adel assumed the interim position and in mid june Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaedas Deputy Operations Chief, officially became the new leader of the militant group. In the case of Al-Qaeda, the killing of Bin Laden reduced the effectiveness of the terrorist cell only temporarily, if at all.

  Worse than temporarily reducing the effectiveness of the group, the killing could lead to the appointment of an even more extreme predecessor. Many experts disagree on how Bin Laden’s death and Al-Zawahiri new leadership will affect Al-Qaeda’s future, but Al-Zawahiri’s deadly resume does not spark much hope for mitigation of Al-Qaeda. The writers Bajoria and Teslik, who work for the think tank and publisher “Council on Foreign Relations”, report that Al-Zawahiri was formerly the leader of the Egyptian terrorist organization ‘Jihad’ that later merged with Al-Qaeda. In this position, he was responsible for the bomb attacks on US embassies in Africa in 1998 (Bajoria). Even more daunting, leading counterterrorist officials and U.S. intelligence agencies believe that “Zawahiri functioned as the group's most important ideological leader[...and] was more instrumental in the tactical planning of the September 11, 2001, attacks than bin Laden himself” (Bajoria).

  Terrorist groups may try to retaliate for the loss of their leader. Al-Qaeda serves again as a good example, because the group “vowed to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden with retaliation against the U.S. soon,” says journalist Alex Rodriquez from the Los Angeles Times (Rodriquez).  Al-Qaeda posted the threats not more than three days after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. As a result of Bin Laden’s death, more than 300 Million U.S. Americans, whether civilians, diplomats in embassies or soldiers in Afghanistan, need to fear new attacks. Not to mention the additional costs of safeguarding airports, train stations and diplomatic institutions. 

  Finding even more negative side effects of targeted killing is not difficult. Possibly, the terrorist group could find itself with more supporters. In the case of Al-Qaeda, this holds true as the people of Afghanistan, for instance, regard the US as an occupational force that arbitrarily kills everybody they deem to be a terrorist. Author on political issues, Phil Scraton puts it this way: “With every bomb that falls on Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq to come, Islamic and Arab militancy will grow and draw the battle lines of a clash of civilizations that fanatics on both sides have long wanted” (Scraton).

  That ‘clash of civilizations’ can not be the solution. In contrast, “only the principles of international law will lead us through [terrorism],” firmly announces Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Given the lack of evidence proofing that targeted killing is effective in stopping militant groups such as Al-Qaeda, and the fact that the drone killings are condemned by the United Nations, Western forces are left with no choice but to seek different solutions for stopping terrorists. Ensuring social stability in Afghanistan and furthering diplomatic relations with adjacent countries such as Pakistan are more important than ever. These measures of course, should go hand in hand with capturing truly guilty terrorists and penalize them in courts. Nobody doubts that there are terrorists that have committed atrocious crimes and they need to be stopped, but targeted killing is neither moral, legal nor effective. 

 

 

Works Cited 

Alexander, Yonah. Counterterrorism Strategies: Successes and Failures of Six Nations. Washington, D.C.: Potomac, 2006. Print. 

Bajoria, Jayshree, and Lee H. Teslik. "Profile: Ayman Al-Zawahiri." Council on Foreign Relations.org. 14 July 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-leaders/profile-ayman-al-zawahiri/p9750>. 

Baker, Peter, and Helen Cooper. "Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says." The New York Times - Asia Pacific. New York Times, 1 May 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html?pagewanted=all>. 

Caplan, Arthur. "Ethics of Assassination: Was It Right to Kill Bin Laden?" Msnbc.com - Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com. MSNBC, 5 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42861619/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/t/was-it-right-kill-bin-laden/>. 

Devine, Philip E. The Ethics of Homicide. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1990. Print. 

Dunlap, David W. "Sept. 11 Death Toll Rises by One, to 2,752." NYTimes.com. 16 Jan. 2009. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/sept-11-death-toll-rises-by-one-to-2752/>. 

"Ex-Bush Official: Many At Guantanamo Bay Are Innocent | Fox News." Fox News - Breaking News Updates. 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/>. 

Jenkins, Brian M. "Should Our Arsenal Against Terrorism Include Assassination? | RAND." RAND Corporation Provides Objective Research Services and Public Policy Analysis. Jan. 1987. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7303.html>. 

Koenigsberg, Richard A. Nations Have the Right to Kill: Hitler, the Holocaust, and War. Elmhurst, NY: Library of Social Science, 2009. Print. 

Madrigal, Alexis. "The (Shy) Woman Whose Words Accidentally Became Martin Luther King's - Alexis Madrigal - Technology - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics. 03 May 2011. Web. 05 Dec. 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/ technology/ archive/2011/05/the-shy-woman-whose-words-accidentally-became- martin-luther-kings/238309/>.

Murray, Mark. "NBC Poll: 80% Said It Was the Right Decision to Kill Bin Laden." First Read on Msnbc.com. National Broadcasting Company, 9 May 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/09/6612049-nbc-poll-80-said-it-was-the-right-decision-to-kill-bin-laden>. 

Rodriguez, Alex. "Al Qaeda Retaliation: Al Qaeda Threatens to Retaliate against U.S." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 07 May 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/07/world/la-fg-qaeda-warning-20110507>.

Scraton, Phil. Beyond September 11: an Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto, 2002. Print. 

"Sixth Amendment." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/sixth_amendment>.

Stewart, Phil. "U.S. Denies NATO Attack on Pakistani Troops Deliberate." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-pakistan- nato- idUSTRE7AT0JZ20111201>. 

Targeted Killing - YouTube. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vSgPVSWn10>. 

Weimer, Westley. "Stolen Quotes." Computer Science, U.Va. Engineering. University of Virginia. Web. 05 Dec. 2011. <http:// www.cs.virginia.edu/~weimer/quotes.html>

Zellner, Harold. Assassi`nation. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Pub., 1974. Print.