By Chip Pitts, KERA 90.1 commentator
Dallas, TX – Two apparently unconnected events last Sunday - the CIA's killing of six reputed al Qaeda terrorists using an unmanned Predator drone, and an attack on a helicopter from the local Hunt Oil company - are in fact related.
They remind us again how events in remote lands far away can dramatically affect lives and security of those here at home, and raise important questions both under domestic and international law and of effective strategy in the war against terror.
The attack on Hunt's helicopter thankfully resulted only in minor injuries, but could have been much worse. It fits into a pattern of increased attacks on Western business interests and tourists to which we MUST respond.
But the CIA's unofficial and unacknowledged attack raises disturbing new questions about where the administration is going with its war on terror. It's illegal for nations to simply send a hit team into another sovereign nation. While there are some old rules allowing countries attacked by pirates to chase those pirates into territorial waters when attacked, this is only when the host nation is unable or unwilling to capture the pirates
itself. Prior U.S. cooperation with Yemen admittedly hasn't produced adequate results, but does that mean that the U.S. should simply step into Yemen or other nations, unilaterally decide on who might be terrorists, and take them out itself?
There's clearly a double standard at work here. The U.S. stepped up efforts in Yemen and other countries in the Horn of Africa region in part because those weak countries can't control al Qaeda operations. But the U.S. is not about to invade Hamburg, Germany to destroy terrorist cells. Nor would we for a minute tolerate another nation taking such actions on our own territory.
There are good reasons for the international norm against assassination, also reflected in domestic law. Presidential Executive Order 12333 was enacted largely in response to outrage at our assassination attempts against Castro in Cuba, and Lumumba of the Congo. We also realized that the rule of law would completely break down if nations assassinated enemies in other nations at will.
Assassination is not a legitimate tool of law or war, but a tool outside the margins of both realms, used mainly by terrorists and rogue states (including al Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq). We mustn't defend against our enemies by becoming them.
Assassination not only runs the risk of getting the wrong person or killing innocent bystanders. As Israel's case shows, such actions produce less rather than more security.
Perceptions of oblivious and insensitive American military power are the source of much terrorism (and originally galvanized bin Laden). If this extreme example of preemptive action, rather than the recent renewed engagement with allies at the U.N., represents the administration's approach to security, we could be in store for many more al Qaeda recruits.
Specters of unmanned, floating 'predators' hovering over and threatening countries like the invaders from H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" - will hardly help the war on terror. We need a world not with more despair and fear, but with greater hopes and dreams. My own fear is that the new U.S. tactic could help bring about something closer to the science fiction nightmare.
International lawyer and businessman Chip Pitts of Dallas is a frequent commentator on foreign affairs.