1. Anwar al-Awlaki (2011) – U.S. Drone Strike in Yemen
Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen of Yemeni descent, was a radical Islamic cleric and a senior operative of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Known for his inflammatory sermons and ties to several terrorist plots against the U.S., al-Awlaki was considered one of the most significant threats to American security. In 2011, a U.S. drone strike killed him in Yemen, a mission sanctioned by then-President Obama.
- Justification: The U.S. government argued that al-Awlaki posed an imminent threat, as he was actively involved in planning attacks against the U.S., including the failed "underwear bomber" plot of 2009. His targeting was framed as a defensive action against a “continuing, imminent threat” rather than a punitive measure.
- Controversy: Al-Awlaki’s killing raised questions around constitutional rights, as he was an American citizen. Critics argued that this set a dangerous precedent, undermining the rule of law and due process rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
2. Osama bin Laden (2011) – U.S. SEAL Team Raid in Pakistan
The killing of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, was arguably one of the most high-profile extra-judicial killings conducted by the U.S. In May 2011, U.S. Navy SEALs raided bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and killed him, following a covert CIA operation.
- Justification: The U.S. government argued that bin Laden was a continuing threat to national security due to his operational role in al-Qaeda. Given the challenges of prosecuting a case in a U.S. court, combined with Pakistan’s perceived inability to arrest him, the U.S. viewed the raid as a necessary action in a prolonged war against terrorism.
- Controversy: The operation took place in Pakistan without informing its government, leading to diplomatic tension and sparking debates over national sovereignty. Critics argued that bin Laden could have been captured and tried, but others contended that his capture would have posed significant security risks.
3. Qasem Soleimani (2020) – U.S. Drone Strike in Iraq
Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian general and head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad, Iraq, in January 2020. Although not part of a traditional terrorist organization, Soleimani was considered a state-backed terrorist operative due to his alleged role in orchestrating attacks against American personnel and interests in the Middle East.
- Justification: The Trump administration justified the strike by claiming that Soleimani was planning "imminent attacks" against American targets in Iraq and the broader region. He was considered responsible for coordinating proxy militia attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities.
- Controversy: Soleimani was a high-ranking military official in Iran, and his assassination was widely viewed as an act of war rather than a counterterrorism measure. Critics argued that the strike bypassed congressional approval and increased the risk of regional escalation, questioning the legality and strategic wisdom of the action.
4. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (2019) – U.S. Special Forces Raid in Syria
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State (ISIS), was killed in a U.S. raid in Syria in 2019. As the architect of ISIS’s brutal campaigns across Syria and Iraq, he was considered one of the most wanted terrorists globally, responsible for thousands of deaths and acts of extreme violence.
- Justification: The U.S. justified targeting al-Baghdadi as part of a mission to dismantle ISIS leadership. His death was intended to destabilize the organization, preventing further terrorist operations and signaling to ISIS affiliates the risks of continued resistance.
- Controversy: Al-Baghdadi’s death reignited debates around the use of lethal force without trial. While his role in terrorism was clear, the lack of due process raised ethical questions on the balance between justice and security in conflict zones where the rule of law is difficult to uphold.
Broader Implications and Justifications
Western governments, particularly the U.S., justify these actions on several grounds:
- Prevention of Imminent Threats: Often, targeted individuals are described as posing immediate threats, especially in cases where intelligence suggests imminent attacks.
- Operational Difficulties in Capturing High-Profile Targets: Many of these individuals operate in regions where legal apprehension is impractical or impossible. In areas like Yemen, Syria, or Pakistan’s tribal regions, there may be no effective local authority to coordinate a legal extradition or capture.
- War on Terror Paradigm: Since the September 11 attacks, Western nations, primarily the U.S., have reframed counterterrorism efforts as a global war, shifting the framework from law enforcement to military strategy. This shift has allowed for a broader interpretation of self-defence. The largest terror attack before 9/11? Downing of an Air India plane by Canadians.
Personally, as I have said on the BBC, if you’re going to do extra-judicial killings do it to the child traffickers and the sex traffickers. Invoking my Article 10 right under the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to Free Speech).
