Depends On What You Mean By “Assassination”
by digby
Chris Hayes hosts a fascinating conversation with law professor Mike Nellis on the burning question of whether the United States government can assassinate people.
In April, it was revealed that the Obama Administration has authorized the CIA to target and kill American-born Islamic cleric, and alleged Al Qaeda operative, Anwar al-Awlaki. According to the subsequent testimony of Admiral Dennis Blair, the administration’s Director of National Security, the targeted hit on al-Awlaki was not an exception to the rule; it fell within the legal rights granted to the executive. The unrestricted bullseye attached to al-Awlaki has many human rights activists, civil libertarians and legal scholars increasingly concerned about expanding executive authority. If the administration reserves the right to kill US citizens without due process, where does the slippery slope end? To explore the legality of assassination and targeted killings, this week’s Breakdown with Christopher Hayes welcomes Vanderbilt law professor Mike Newton.
Evidently, it all depends on whether you call it “targeted killing” vs “assassination.” And under international law, the criteria for “targeted killing” are irrespective of nationality. They are incredibly difficult targeting decisions, though, so that’s reassuring.
As for killing Americans on American soil — well, it’s legal too, although it would cause the government to jump through some legal hoops:
There are generally a variety of other way that are better and more suited and more lawful and are more clearly within the tradition of American law and respect for protection of human rights, but what it gets back to in truth is a very disciplined, good faith application of these non-wavering international rules.
As Hayes says dryly, that’s unsettling.
Listen to the whole thing. It’s short.
.