Attorney General Defends Targeting U.S. Terror Suspects Abroad
By aaroncynic in News on Mar 6, 2012 3:00PM
Attorney General Eric Holder defended the United States's right to target and kill citizens abroad in the war on terror in a speech at Northwestern University Law School. The Chicago Tribune reports Holder stressed such actions could only be taken “in full accordance with the Constitution,” and are in accordance with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
In addition, Holder also defended the practice of using both military tribunals and federal courts, saying “There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts.”
In his 5,000 word speech, Holder stated that U.S. authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan, as “we are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.” While he said that “international legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty” mean the United States cannot “use military force whenever or wherever we want,” he added the use of force in foreign territory could also be authorized “after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.”
Such force, however, according to Holder, could only be used if the target posed an “imminent threat” and capture was “not feasible.”
While Holder's speech seemed to give some broad justifications of the Obama Administration's policy of targeted drone attacks against suspected terrorists without trial, it didn't answer many specifics. Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas told Politico “There was no description of the internal process — no nuts and bolts. The missing part was a full-on account of exactly what the internal screening process is, but I’m not surprised that half got dropped out.”
If anything, Holder's speech at Northwestern only made it clear that ultimately, the power to target suspected terrorists lies with the executive branch of government. As Adam Sewer at Mother Jones points out:
If the standards for when the government can send a deadly flying robot to vaporize you sound a bit subjective, that's because they are. Holder made clear that decisions about which citizens the government can kill are the exclusive province of the executive branch, because only the executive branch possess the "expertise and immediate access to information" to make these life-and-death judgments.