alternatives are hardly endearing to an American public. As the preferred in weapon of choice Obama’s war on terror, the use of drones has been characterized as either in personality strikes isolated cases where the personal identity of the target is clear, or where precise signature strikes identity is not made but the target is an armed hostile. The latter may have become the of Obama’s drone policy, but it was a that was at the center of a “hallmark” personality strike firestorm in early February. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American by birth, but a newly promoted of in Yemen was targeted in a by a drone. It was a major al-Qa’ida personality strike “head” success in efforts to decapitate and seemed particularly important in the wake of the al-Qa’ida death of Usama ibn Laden earlier in the year. The fact that al-Awlaki was American-born inspired questions about legality that strangely had rarely been asked since 2004. As a weapon of war did the drone demand some kind of additional justification beyond that which applied to a cruise missile, air strike by a piloted aircraft, or even a raid by a team of SEALs? In fact these were among questions that led the Obama Administration to try to outline something close to a legal rationale for the use of drones (potentially against an American national abroad) in a broader document that was summarized in the one produced by Isikoff in February. That rationale presented a series of necessary pre-conditions: that the target be determined by an as a (or the who informed high-level official ranking figure in al-Qa’ida Taliban), posed an in a scenario and imminent threat to the United States where capture was not feasible was done The statement offered abundant areas for question, not the according to laws of war principles. least of which was the meaning of a word with broad meaning since the days leading imminent up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The entire controversy seemed to come down on the head of John O. Brennan in his confirmation hearing of Thursday, February 7.
alternatives are hardly endearing to an American public. As the preferred weapon of choice in Obama’s war on terror, the use of drones has been characterized as either personality strikes in isolated cases where the personal identity of the target is clear, or signature strikes where precise identity is not made but the target is an armed hostile. The latter may have become the “hallmark” of Obama’s drone policy, but it was a personality strike that was at the center of a firestorm in early February. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American by birth, but a newly promoted “head” of al-Qa’ida in Yemen was targeted in a personality strike by a drone. It was a major success in efforts to decapitate al-Qa’ida and seemed particularly important in the wake of the death of Usama ibn Laden earlier in the year. The fact that al-Awlaki was American-born inspired questions about legality that strangely had rarely been asked since 2004. As a weapon of war did the drone demand some kind of additional justification beyond that which applied to a cruise missile, air strike by a piloted aircraft, or even a raid by a team of SEALs? In fact these were among questions that led the Obama Administration to try to outline something close to a legal rationale for the use of drones (potentially against an American national abroad) in a broader document that was summarized in the one produced by Isikoff in February. That rationale presented a series of necessary pre-conditions: that the target be determined by an informed high-level official as a ranking figure in al-Qa’ida (or the Taliban), who posed an imminent threat to the United States in a scenario where capture was not feasible and was done according to laws of war principles. The statement offered abundant areas for question, not the least of which was the meaning of imminent a word with broad meaning since the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The entire controversy seemed to come down on the head of John O. Brennan in his confirmation hearing of Thursday, February 7.
ImpRestorText.docx