Targeted Killings: The Case of Anwar al-Awlaki

The killing of al-Awlaki was a violation of U.S. delinquent motion procedures. An fight al-Awlaki had US and Yemen nationality. Since the Ameri mickle Civil War, this has seemed to be the first time the US government has deliberately killed a US citizen as a wartime oppositeness without trial. The presidents power is not examined.This approach raises the question about who the next rear end during the presidents execution will be and whether the authorities will take standardized actions in the join States in the future. There may be a situation where no one knows the depict and then the government tells everyone evidence what they want to tell.Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said If the reality of the Constitution is valuable, it certainly performer that the President has no power to be unexamined and cannot rashly execute any American citizen who he considers to be a public enemy of the country. The manslaughter occurred in this killing and vio lated in multinational Humanitarian Law.In the process of facing anti-terrorism, misjudgment and missed judgment argon problems that cannot be solved in the forecast. The number of the great unwashed killed in Pakistan due to garget efforts since 2004 has been between 2,500 and 4,000, and most of them have been classified as extremists by the US government. In the years that followed, thousands of innocent people in Pakistan could top out to premature death beca example of the misjudgment of the bourdon.Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed in a U.S. thrust accomplish in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old boy born in Denver, was killed in a U.S. drone pipe strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011, tour he was eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant with his teen cousin. 90% of the deceased be not the target of the US troops, except they are all labeled by the US as the enemy that has been killed in action.Anyone who appears to be near the es tablished attack site is considered collaborator and there is no conclusive evidence that they should be killed. However, when the US military implemented the drone assassination plan, the assassination target was not ineluctably a serious threat to the United States. Most of the casualties caused by drone strikes were innocent people, which caused the US government and the Pentagon to be blamed by the multinational world.Before the fight against terrorism, the United States did not prove that there were no other non-military ways to choose from. It was much like an after-the-fact retaliation. In the process, the United States over-emphasized its own interests by slogans against terrorism, or the value is imposed on people, and the drone attacking terrorist crimes violates the sovereignty of other countries, making the contradictions even more than intensified.Secondly, the U.S. attack on drones does not conform to the principle of proportionality, and it has harmed many innoc ent civilians dapple attacking terrorism. The US military still carried out bombing missions duration knowing that there were civilian houses in the area where it was attacked. When the target cannot be clearly identified, the US military will call these innocent people the enemy of death. Therefore, the United States dispatch of drones to the territory of other countries for military strikes against terrorism does not meet the constitutional elements of pre-self-defense rights and cannot be recognized as legitimate.On November 25, 2013, in San Francisco, the demonstrators put on a drone model against Obamas use of drone to counter-terrorism policies. The use of drones had put a lot of pressure on the US government. The use of drones needed to become more rigorous in the future. The US military is trying to improve the technology of this drone. On may 2013, the White House announced a new guide to counter-terrorism operations, placing more restrictions on drone attack plans.In a speech, Obama announced that drone operations will be strictly targeted at those who form a sustained and powerful threat to the American people. Obama also stressed that exclusively when the target of the attack poses a threat to US security, the assassination can only be initiated, and it must be ensured that the assassination will not harm civilians. This incident created a new precedent in how the U.S. propagates its war on terror. The US military is making more efforts on drones to rule out terrorism.Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the use of drones to combat individuals has become a frequent means of US counter-terrorism operations. These targeted killings are effective in many ways. Military anteriority policies are expected to bring greater transparency to drone strikes and fracture coordinate these actions in accordance with the spirit of certain aspects of international law. Since the set-back of the 21st century, drones have rapidly developed into a ne w fiber of air power and have shown an increasingly important role in recent warfare.The United States is the worlds number one military power. It is currently at the forefront of military drone technology. However, the US military has never relaxed its exploration and development of drone technology. The research institute headed by the US excuse Advanced Research Projects Agency and the United States.The industry has jointly launched a series of technical projects involving cognitive electronic countermeasures, precision fire support, unified navigation and bee colony-enabled operations, etc., providing technical upgrades for the US militarys future military drones. Drones have make great contributions to the US military in the war on terror. UAVs are playing an increasingly important role. Being able to fight 24 hours a day, delivering real-time activity videos to control personnel and pinpointing targets, makes drones indispensable in war.Finally, the use of drones in tradit ional wars, armed conflicts, or counter-terrorism operations with modern characteristics should be applied to international humanitarian law. From the perspective of international law, it is demand to incorporate drone attacks into the normative system, giving them clear definitions and reasonable regulations, and counteract some countries from exploiting the loopholes and contradictions of international law to undermine the world order.In international law, whether the acts involving drones against terrorists violate the relevant rules of international humanitarian law. Clearing prohibitions should be do to solve the problem of defining too general and vague. Furthermore, peace and stability in the world situation are of paramount importance. As more and more countries use drones, they can hold international conferences about drone attacks and call on relevant countries to sign international treaties.