Targeting Individuals: Overcoming the Dilemmas of Secrecy

Abstract

Targeted killing is not new. What has changed is the nature of armed conflict, states that openly admit to the practice, and the emergence of much more capable technology. Targeting individuals seems to make sense given the changing nature of armed conflict. But whether targeting dangerous individuals is indeed legal, effective, and ethical is often impossible to determine, either in specific cases or systematically, because of the secrecy surrounding such operations. Calls from civil society and legislatures for greater transparency in targeted killings are unlikely to result in more openness or accountability, easily denied by the precedence of security claims for these intelligence-driven operations and covert actions. This barrier also makes it very difficult to develop consistent domestic and international rules for targeting individuals outside war zones. If states became more transparent about how and why individuals are targeted, the approach could gain more legitimacy. Rather than giving states a blanket legal authority of secretly killing individuals they deem terrorists or threats to national security, a workable solution could be a systematic preference to rely on non-lethal means in targeted counterterrorism operations with the aim of subsequent prosecution of captured individuals. A systematic preference for non-lethality should be accompanied by a requirement for the humane treatment of detained terrorists/combatants and a requirement for a fair trial after a specified period of detention. Secret prisons and indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects not charged with any crime should not be permissible practices in democratic states.