Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, P reemption, and the War on Terrorism
UAV, armed with Hellfire guided missiles, was used to attack a vehicle in which the terrorist was traveling.62 The resulting explosion killed all in the vehicle, including the suspected target, Abu Ali al-Harithi, an al Qaeda leader and one of the terrorist network’s top figures in Yemen. Officials in the United States still refused to admit responsibility for the attack, though a significant amount of reporting indicates that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operated the drone. The day following the attack, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked if the United States had been involved in the explosion. He did not identify those responsible for the attack, though he did seem well aware of the target. The following exchange is insightful and is provided as an example of the plausible deniability with which the United States and other nations often approach public questions about incidents of targeted killing.63 Q: Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about the car explosion that was reported today in Yemen? Were any U.S. forces involved in that? And have you learned anything about the aftermath of who was killed in that event? Rumsfeld: I’ve seen the reports. And the discussion in one of the reports—I didn’t notice whose report it was, but it looked like a wire service report of something out of the region—it said that Harithi might be involved, in which case, as I recall, he was in fact one of the people that is thought to have been involved with the USS Cole. Q: Have you confirmed that through government sources? Rumsfeld: No. I have not. And needless to say, he has been an individual that has been sought after as an al Qaeda member, as well as a suspected terrorist connected to the USS Cole.64 So it would be a very good thing if he were out of business. It is clear that targeted killing has become an accepted American foreign policy option, with a tacit rationale in self-defense. While this undoubtedly will result in questions about its legality and, perhaps more import antly, the volatile issue of the U.S. military conduct of operations abroad, there is little question that this practice will continue. The policy of targeted killing, as adopted by the United States, has also caused consternation among legal observers who feel that this method of premeditated killing crosses the boundary set forth in Executive Order 12,333, which bans assassinations. However, it is clear that the United 19