Nick Baumann wonders whether the US will decide to use a drone to assassinate Abdullah al-Shami, an American-born militant who is believed to be involved in the production of IEDs for al-Qaeda and is currently living in northwest Pakistan:
The government claims that, of the four Americans killed by drone strikes under Obama, only [Anwar al-Awlaki] was deliberately and specifically targeted for death—the first and only American to receive such treatment thus far. Shami would be the second. This time, though, there’s even less public information about the man the government is targeting for death. The New York Times‘ Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt reported Friday that Shami is a nom de guerre, and the Obama administration won’t even release the alleged terrorist’s real name.
Leah Libresco looks at how the administration could be maneuvering itself:
According to the Times, the debate over al-Shami’s death has been driven as much by logistical concerns as by ethical or legal scruples.
Obama has been working to hand over responsibility for drone assassinations to the Pentagon. This would put drone program under a few more legal restrictions, but free the United States to claim responsibility for strikes and make other disclosures that the CIA can’t.
However, the Pentagon has no authority to kill anyone in Pakistan, where al-Shami is rumored to be hiding. If the President makes an exception to allow the CIA to conduct this strike, it will be yet another jury-rigged change to our legal system, meant to secure the short-term objective of killing the enemy, while possibly endangering the security and trustworthiness of the government we are defending from men like al-Shami.
Wells Bennett picks up on a quote in the NYT piece that may illuminate the administration’s thinking:
“We have clear and convincing evidence that [al-Shami’s] involved in the production and distribution of I.E.D.’s,” said one senior administration official, referring to improvised explosive devices, long the leading killer of American troops in Afghanistan.
It happens that “clear and convincing evidence” is an established legal standard, one lying somewhere between the “preponderance of the evidence” that applies in many civil disputes, and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that prosecutors must satisfy in criminal trials. … Does the official’s quote hint that the “clear and convincing” standard broadly governs the executive branch’s decision to use lethal force in cases such as al-Shami’s—that is, to target him to begin with?
