By Jason Smeltzer
Tuesdays are a relatively benign day of the week for most people in the United States. However, Tuesdays mark the President’s weekly counterterrorism meetings and his review of the infamous kill list. Ending up on the list is equivalent to an immediate death sentence. The policy that governs the list is of course classified, but there have been several publications on the subject.
At the moment, the United States is employing a policy that quickly escalates counterterrorism operations from investigating allegations of suspected terrorist operations to neutralizing targets via unmanned vehicle strikes (UAV’s). While the majority of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 remains classified, what has been disclosed so far is that policy has “broadened the war beyond Al Qaeda and the states that had harbored or assisted its planning and preparations for the 9.11.01 attack,” [1](Bowen 2012). Is this really the only option though? Should this method be the “go to” for the US counterterrorism policy?
Several motivators for the use of force is the psychological shock and awe value, the amount of money to be made in the use of munitions to kill insurgents, the cost to construct rockets, UAV’s, personnel equipment and vehicles in addition to the pay for military personnel to carry out the operations. The US is after all in need of money so it makes sense to use its legendary military industrial complex to make money. These are all fantastic incentives to continue a campaign where targeted killing is the primary method of target neutralization.
However, the fact is that a dead terrorist cannot reveal information about future attacks, and proceeding with the present policy results in far too much collateral damage.
The excessive use of force risks the possibility of creating martyrs in addition to potentially turning the survivors who loose loved ones in the collateral damage into future enemies. If the United States continues to pursue the use of lethal force as its only avenue in counterterrorism operations it veers into the direction of setting dangerous domestic and international legal precedent. The question that begs to be asked is how long it will be before a domestic targeted killing takes place. While it is a fact that a foreign military target is not protected by the US Constitution domestic suspects fall under a different category.
Rather than exploring the capture of individuals suspected of terrorist activity and proceeding with an investigation and prosecution of suspects via the legal system, a non-negotiable kill policy endangers the very intention of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Removing government limitations and the necessity for checks and balances steps dangerously close to removing the need for a legislative and judicial branch. It is imperative that the policymakers in office at present consider other conflict resolution strategies rather than selecting the easiest option.
________________________________________
[1]Bowen, Gordon. “”Targeted Killings:” U.S. Policy toward use of covert operations involving assassination.” Understanding American Foreign Policy.
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/AssassinationPolicy.htm (accessed June 17 2012).
Comments are closed.