@13. My feeling is that international law is awkward in this type of asymmetric situation. That said, I hope Conor wanders over here and provide some wisdom.

There’s a decent article discussing the issues (paywall). Basically, as we’ve seen here and in the Pickled Politics thread, there’s a tension between a law-enforcement model and a just-war scenario. The author takes a mixed-model approach as follows:

…use of lethal force to defend persons against unlawful violence is justified only when absolutely necessary. As seen above, the accepted view is that this test will be met only when force is used to stop an imminent attack. In other cases, law enforcement mechanisms must be employed. When the terrorists are not subject to the law enforcement jurisdiction of the victim state, and we are talking about violence of the scale and intensity required for the situation to be regarded as one of armed conflict, the parameters of absolute necessity have to be reconsidered.
…I suggest that in deciding whether targeting suspected terrorists could be regarded as absolutely necessary we draw a parallel to a state’s inherent right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In exercising this right, a state’s actions are subject to the requirements of necessity and proportionality. Under the principle of necessity, a state may not use force if there are other means of defending itself. In the present context the implication is that a state may not target suspected terrorists if there is a reasonable possibility of apprehending them and putting them on trial…
Applied to the 2002 cases, even in spite of the consent of the Yemeni government, “the targeting of al-Harethi and his companions was compatible with IHL. Had the Yemen authorities been able to arrest al-Harethi, the licence given to the US to act could not have made the targeting lawful.”

Thanks for your article.

Do you have any idea whether there is any international law on this subject?

It seems to me that the targetting of folk across international boundaries is a step beyond what we normally see as law.

Perhaps I am wrong, but for any state to attempt to claim that the rest of the planet is the Wild West, subject only to gun law, is a step too far?

There have been cases of assassination in my own city. I do not recall them being treated as anything other than murder. Are we supposed to bow down to American exceptionalism, yet again?

Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead….
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

“Today’s report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties.”

In March, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas and related information. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, internal oversight and safeguards and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

Regardless of one’s beliefs about his morality, or let’s be clear, absolute immorality, constitutional rights are there to protect citizens from the whims of an over-mighty state. And they apply to all.

I have no problem with targeted assassination of enemy leaderships during a state of war. Why should military action be limited to followers and exempt their leaders?

But this is a different case to Israel’s actions against Yassin, Rantisi or Mabouh. For Obama to act in this way, the US should first either try Awlaki on the evidence against him or revoke his citizenship. In both cases, with all due process.

Is it being challenged?

Not really, no, but criticisms are ably voiced here, here and here. People of a certain persuasion, of course, think it’s the first good thing he’s done. True believers are far too busy worrying about the Tea Parties.

I did a little digging around, and it looks like no one is trying to challenge the decision legally. Spencer Ackerman (linked in the post) has filed FOIA requests, and Glenn Greenwald might do something (linked in Sunny’s post).

I would imagine that by the time a court would get round to wanting to hear the case, either a) Awlaki will be already dead, or b) lots of Yemeni civilians will be dead in a bunch of robokill drone attacks that miss him.

I would add that Yemen is dead-set against the idea, as they’ve made clear in a kind-of pro-Awlaki statement. I suspect they fear greater radicalisation.

And, it seems even military wonks are a tad concerned.

Was it legal? No. Justified is a more difficult question, but again, no. This was a terrorist act which extends the State’s power even further into totalitarianism: it would be entirely justified to arrest Obama on sight.

And sideswipe at HP apart, at least YOU didn’t blame Nick Cohen.

That President Obama would consider doing such a thing is a grave disappointment – if the Republicans can avoid footshooting and Palin worship enough to find a liberal constitutionalist (there are still some around) they could win the next presidential election very easily on the basis of this sort of thing.