US probes legality of anti-terror strikes

Published: September 17, 2011

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts — A top US anti-terror advisor Friday hinted at the debate inside the White House over legal constraints on US operations striking at Al-Qaeda suspects in places like Yemen and Somalia.
John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top advisor for counterterrorism and homeland security, was also using a speech to criticize attempts by some lawmakers to prevent civilian courts dealing with terror suspects.
Brennan’s speech at Harvard Law School later Friday laid out the legal questions surrounding US counterterrorism operations, especially the widening geographical spread of US military strikes against extremists.
“The United States does not view our authority to use military force against Al-Qaeda as being restricted solely to ‘hot’ battlefields like Afghanistan,” Brennan said in excerpts of his remarks.
“We reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.”
However, Brennan added, “that does not mean we can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want.
“International legal principles, including respect for a state’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally-and on the way in which we can use force-in foreign territories.”
The New York Times earlier quoted administration and congressional officials as saying that the Obama team was divided on the legal leeway the United States had in killing Islamist militants in Yemen and Somalia.
The paper said the discussion, pivotal to the future course of the anti-terror fight, centered on the extent to which Washington could escalate drone strikes, cruise missiles or commando raids from current high value Al-Qaeda targets to target thousands of extremist “foot soldiers.”
Brennan also took issue with administration critics on Capitol Hill who are seeking to mandate that all terror suspects are treated as enemy combatants and held in military custody rather than in the civilian court system.
“I am deeply concerned that the alternative approach to counterterrorism being advocated in some quarters would represent a drastic departure from our values and the body of laws and principles that have always made this country a force for positive change in the world,” Brennan said.
“Such a departure would not only risk rejection by our courts and the American public, it would undermine the international cooperation that has been critical to the national security gains we have made.
“Our counterterrorism professionals — regardless of the administration in power — need the flexibility to make well-informed decisions about where to prosecute terrorist suspects.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *