The Drone War’s Genesis: A Shift in Counterterrorism

In May 2013, during a pivotal foreign policy address in Washington, D.C., I interrupted President Barack Obama to challenge the morality and legality of his administration’s drone program. My question – how could a constitutional lawyer authorize the killing of individuals, including a 16-year-old American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, without due process – was met with a response that, while acknowledging the importance of the concerns raised, did not halt the program. Obama stated, “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to,” but the drone strikes continued.

Prior to that confrontation, I had met with Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman’s grandfather, in Yemen. A man of profound dignity and education, Nasser questioned the very foundation of American justice: “How can a nation that speaks of law and justice kill an American child without apology, without even a justification?” His grief encapsulated the devastating impact of a policy that prioritized perceived security over fundamental human rights.

Under Obama, thousands perished in drone strikes across Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Communities lived under constant fear, unsure if the next drone would bring death to themselves, their children, or their neighbors. A 2012 delegation from CODEPINK to Pakistan revealed firsthand accounts of the horrors inflicted upon civilian populations. One tribal leader recounted a peaceful jirga – a gathering of elders – obliterated by a U.S. missile, followed by a second strike targeting the survivors attempting to provide aid. Forty-two people, including elders and local officials, were killed, and no one in Washington was held accountable. CODEPINK’s report details the harrowing experiences of those affected.

While Obama eventually scaled back the drone program, it wasn’t due to inherent illegality or immorality, but rather the rising political cost. The true legacy of the Obama administration was the normalization of the idea that the United States could unilaterally decide who lived and died, without due process or oversight. This normalization laid the groundwork for the actions we are witnessing today.

From Drones to the Sea: The Trump Administration’s Expansion of Lethal Authority

The Trump administration has taken this precedent a step further, authorizing extrajudicial assassinations at sea, including the controversial practice of “double taps” – striking a vessel and then targeting survivors. As of December 15th, these strikes have resulted in the deaths of 95 people across 25 boats. The administration’s refusal to release the legal justification for these killings, or the video footage of the September bombing that killed two shipwrecked sailors, only deepens the concerns. CBS News provides detailed coverage of these recent events.

Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian fisherman killed on September 15th, is a stark example of the human cost of this policy. His family has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing that he was simply working when the U.S. government ended his life. Even in cases involving suspected drug smuggling, the open sea cannot be declared a battlefield, and civilians cannot be stripped of their right to due process. The U.S. cannot simply label individuals “enemy fighters” to justify unlawful killings.

Civil liberties groups are actively suing the government to compel the release of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and related documents. The public deserves transparency and accountability. What safeguards are in place to prevent future tragedies? And what message are we sending to the world about our commitment to the rule of law?

For over two decades, human rights advocates have warned that unchecked drone warfare would erode the boundaries between war and peace, combatants and civilians, and military force and law enforcement. Trump’s maritime killings are the logical, and terrifying, culmination of a system cemented by the Obama administration: killing people far from any traditional battlefield, without legal authority, congressional approval, or regard for human rights.

Frequently Asked Questions About Extrajudicial Killings

• What are extrajudicial killings and why are they controversial?

  Extrajudicial killings are the intentional killing of a person by a state authority without due process of law. They are controversial because they violate fundamental human rights and undermine the rule of law.

• How did the Obama administration’s drone program contribute to the current situation?

  The Obama administration’s widespread use of drone strikes normalized the practice of targeted killings without due process, creating a legal and ethical precedent for subsequent administrations.

• What is the legal basis for the Trump administration’s maritime killings?

  The legal basis remains largely opaque, as the administration has refused to release the relevant legal memos. This lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the legality of these actions.

• What is a “double tap” strike and why is it considered particularly problematic?

  A “double tap” strike involves attacking a target and then, shortly after, attacking the same location again, often targeting first responders or survivors. This practice raises serious questions about intentional targeting of civilians.

• What can be done to hold those responsible for these killings accountable?

  Legal challenges, investigations by international bodies, and increased transparency are crucial steps towards holding those responsible accountable for potential violations of international law.