The Normalization And Legitimation Of Political Assassinations

Having banned political assassinations in 1976 after a Congressional inquiry, in the 1980s the US government started developing legal arguments that permitted the targeting of terrorists regardless of the ban. Washington's posture changed again in the aftermath of 9/11. The Bush administration came to consider“targeted killing” as an important component of its“global war on terror.”

In 2002, the US carried out the first successful drone strike outside an area of active hostility in Yemen. The strike killed Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, one of the terrorists responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, as well as an American citizen traveling with him.

The US government only referred obliquely to the strike, but US officials dismissed the UN's criticism . Targeted killings, primarily via drone strikes, expanded radically during Obama's first term. More importantly, under Obama, the US government engaged more explicitly in an effort to justify drone strikes under international law .

Politically and strategically, members of the administration described targeted killings as “surgical.” They were presented as better than other forms of bombing and – definitely – better than conventional warfare .

On the legal side, successive US governments developed an expanded notion of self-defense and imminence , arguing – in part – that the US could strike a terrorist even if they did not pose an immediate threat. The US government would often refer to Israeli jurisprudence in its legal arguments .

These and other questionable interpretations of the laws of armed conflict and human rights law were used by the US to give itself (and its allies) an effective green light to target (suspected) terrorists in countries around the globe.

The Trump administration's killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 adapted these arguments for the targeting of a state official. Administration officials initially made claims surrounding self-defense and the imminence of Soleimani's threat to justify the hit. But these were quickly dropped .

American officials claimed instead that Soleimani had US blood on his hands, an argument that hinted more at revenge than self-defense.

And yet, the assassination elicited little international condemnation. In fact, a joint statement by the British, French, and German governments two days after Soleimani's death simply condemned what it described as Iran's role in the violence in the region. It failed to even mention Soleimani's killing.

These notions endured. In 2021, Biden partly justified the withdrawal from Afghanistan through the availability of“over-the-horizon” capacities to“act firmly and decisively if needed.” A year later, the United States National Security Strategy hailed the killing of al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Kabul at the end of July 2022 as a proof of concept.

By this point, the US government had stopped engaging in elaborate legal justifications. Instead, it would claim that “justice had been delivered” . This was the same rhetoric used by Barack Obama in his speech announcing the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden, which had stated that “justice has been done.”

Although, from a legal perspective, both the assassinations of Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri were highly controversial, the US did not feel the need to provide a justification under international law for either.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

As Nasrallah's killing demonstrates, legitimizing efforts by Israel and the US have been so successful in normalizing assassination that, even when they acknowledge assassinations, they rarely engage in legal justifications anymore. Instead, they simply talk of“justice.”

Two main dynamics have contributed to the normalization of assassination and targeted killings.

Firstly, there are more of them. In the conduct of their (covert) foreign policies, some countries now regularly resort to assassinations and targeted killings. They present them as“surgical” and better strategic alternatives to ground attacks and broader aerial bombing (although these routinely also take place alongside“targeted assassinations.”

Second, several states – but particularly Israel and the US – have been at the forefront of an effort to justify their conduct as compatible with international law. The deadly legacy of this process is that a strike can now be openly claimed as an “assassination” , neither“surgical” nor an alternative to ground war, with little fear of international repercussions.

Luca Trenta is associate professor in international relations, Swansea University ; Emil Archambault is Addison Wheeler Fellow in the School of Government and International Affairs , Durham University , and Sophie Duroy is lecturer in law, Essex Law School, University of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.