|
Abstract
|
This Article analyzes the legality of targeted killing under United States domestic law--including the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.
On January 2, 2020, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a public statement that "[a]t the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization."1 Soleimani was the Iranian terror master who, along with the Quds force, was "responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more."2 Soleimani "orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months. . . culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel."3 Yet Soleimani was not targeted based solely on his past crimes, or at least that was not the reason provided to justify the strike. President Donald Trump authorized the strike because Soleimani was planning an "imminent attack against Americans."4 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concurred, adding that Soleimani was planning a "big action that could potentially kill hundreds of American diplomats and soldiers."5 The DoD stated that the strike was a "decisive defensive action." The DoD further stated that "[t]he strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans."6
In the wake of Soleimani's death, journalists, politicians, and members of the international law community throughout the world reacted strongly.7 Many commentators condemned the United States and the Trump Administration.8 For example, one journalist noted that approval or criticism of the Soleimani strike appeared to be based largely on partisan loyalties.9 Some commentators argued that the Soleimani strike was "tantamount to an act of war,"10 predicted that Iran would retaliate,11 and claimed that the United States would be dragged into another bloody war in the Middle East.12 The Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin cautioning that "Iranian leadership and several affiliated violent extremist organizations publicly stated they intend to retaliate against the United States" and "an attack in the homeland may come with little or no warning."13 Journalists, politicians, and legal commentators threw the term "assassination" around, rather loosely, generally as an assumption without any supporting legal analysis.14
Was the Soleimani strike an "assassination," as some critics claim? Or was it a "targeted killing"? Was it, as the DoD stated, a "decisive defensive action"?
Availaable: Poole, Bryce, The Constitutionality of Targeted Killing (January 31, 2022). The Constitutionality of Targeted Killing, 34 Regent L. Rev. 69 (2021), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4022452
Language: en |