Reply to Professor Meisels

Waldron’s reply focuses on several difficulties in the account given by Meisels, mostly concerning arguments raised against targeted killing to which a proper response has not been given. The first such argument is the element of manhunting that targeted killing involves—an element that distinguishes it sharply from ordinary combat. One must also consider the role of intelligence operatives, in these killings, as opposed to soldiers. Secondly, Waldron insists again on the importance of the problem of possible abuse of this practice, particularly given the tendency to use the word “terrorist” to describe any insurgent or opponent. Thirdly, Waldron considers problems of effectiveness. And fourthly, he addresses some of the specific issues about the assassination of nuclear scientists raised in the account given by Professor Meisels.

For

This chapter opens the debate with Meisels’ defense of targeted killing as a legitimate and desirable defensive anti-terrorism strategy, in keeping with both just war theory and international law. Meisels’ unequivocal starting point regarding counter-terrorism is that a state of continuous armed struggle exists between states and various terrorist organizations and their affiliates. Meisels unreservedly defends the named killing of irregular combatants, most notably terrorists, in the course of armed conflict, distinguishing sharply between this wartime practice and the related illicit practice of political assassination. Later in this chapter, the author offers a possible moral justification for rare instances of assassination outside that framework, specifically with reference to recent cases of nuclear scientists developing weapons of mass destruction for the Iranian and Syrian governments.

Introduction

The debate over targeted killing in this volume begins with a joint introduction by the authors, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short overview of the practice—what is targeted killing, and how has it been used, in which conflicts, and by whom. Following some historical examples, mostly from Israel and the United States, the authors distinguish between contemporary signature strikes and personality strikes, and focus their forthcoming debate on the latter, i.e., named killing. While this book touches on a wide array of issues, e.g., civilian immunity, drones, violation of sovereignty, abuse of government power, etc., the authors urge the reader early on to maintain a steadfast focus on the essence of targeted killing debated throughout, namely, the targeting for death of named and identified individuals by our states and leaders.

Reply to Professor Waldron

The volume concludes with an exchange between the authors, directly engaging with the others’ respective argument. In this penultimate chapter, Meisels briefly responds and replies to the arguments raised by Waldron against targeted killing. Meisels emphasizes some points of agreement between the two authors: Their commitment to the right to life and the laws of armed conflicts, and their non-pacifist and non-absolutist position on targeted killing. She reemphasizes their points of disagreement, such as the authors’ very different use of analogies, particularly in determining the normative framework for discussing targeted killing (war/armed conflict), their differing views on possible proliferation of target killing, as well as disagreements over precedents and particular cases.

Against

The debate continues with Waldron’s presentation of several arguments against targeted killing. Most of these arguments focus on the killing itself and the difference that is made by the fact that the individuals on the government’s death lists are hunted down by name, often well away from any area of combat or imminent responsibility for terrorist attack. Though Waldron’s arguments, like Meisels’, focus on the actions of American and Israeli forces, it is important also to consider the likely proliferation of targeted killing as a standard technique of statecraft throughout the world. And that leads us to the possibility of governmental abuse of targeted killing authority. The term “terrorist” is easily extended just as the term “imminent” is being stretched by defenders of targeted killing to ensure that targets are available. There is a danger that targeted killing might be used against insurgents as well as terrorists, not to mention successful criminals and political opponents. And the practice of targeted killing tends to weaken the inhibition against assassination that until now has characterized civilized political life.