Discussion on notes-on-preparing-e1-3‏

[gijung S]

E1.3)
Marjorie Miller in the article titled “Targeted for Death” interviews
various people on the legality of a government ordering the killing of
terrorists or criminals. Various experts are interviewed about this
topic. Three main viewpoints are presented: it is not legal for
governments to order the killing of terrorists or criminals no matter
the circumstances; it is legal if it is in an area of active conflict,
and it is legal regardless of whether or not it is in an area of
conflict as long as it is justified. The key question in all these
viewpoints is what is defined as legal. The decision about whether
killing a terrorist is legal must be made by the people of each
country. In the case of the United States, both Presidents Bush and
Obama have made orders that have made this type of killing legal and
until the people of the United States make this action illegal, it is
legal for the United States to order killings.

Miller points out that the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial
killing, Philip Alston and the Executive Director, International Human
Rights Program, UCLA School of Law; former State Department lawyer,
David Kaye, believe this type of killing is against international law,
but this is wrong because the important question for the United States
is whether or not the United States has agreed to follow the governing
body that has created this international law. Miller, also, quotes
Hoover Institution, Task Force on National Security and Law, Kenneth
Anderson, who believes, “There has to be ongoing, sustained fighting –
active hostilities.” If this is present then the killing is lawful,
but that’s also wrong because the need for active hostilities means
that we are following international law regarding areas of active
hostilities. Miller, also, asks Amos Guiora, Professor of Law, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, University of Utah and Michael Walzer, author
of “Just and Unjust Wars”; emeritus professor, Institute for Advanced
Study; co-editor of Dissent magazine about this question. They both
agree that it is legal as long as there is proper justification no
matter if it is in active area of hostilities or not, but that’s wrong
too because that is not what is the deciding criteria. The deciding
criteria are the law of the country and what powers the law gives the
President to make certain orders.

If a country has not chosen to join the governing body that creates
International Law, then it is unfair for a country to have to follow
International Law. It would be like a group of friends joining a
group and making a decision and saying you have to follow that
decision even though you never joined that group. If a country has
chosen not to join this international group, then the country’s
decision to allow this type of killing should be based on the laws of
that country. In the United States, Miller quotes Vicki Divoll, who
teaches U.S. government and Constitution at the Naval Academy, “...the
Bush and Obama administration have secretly amended, waived or
reinterpreted the ban to allow for the targeted killing by civilian
intelligence officers of named terrorists outside of a war…” As a
result, as long as it is lawful within the laws of the United States,
it is legal. It does leave the United States in a difficult position
because the United States is then saying that others can come to our
country and kill as Kaye had mentioned. If not, then the United
States is saying they can do what they want in another country but
others cannot do the same thing in the United States. If people of a
country do not agree with this view, then they should change the laws
within the country to mandate that they follow International Law or
make laws that forbid the President from taking such actions.