Connect with us

RSS

What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists

Explosions take place on the deck of the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion on the Red Sea, in this handout picture released Aug. 29, 2024. Photo: Houthi Military Media/Handout via REUTERS

During the coming year, the United States, in occasional concert with Israel, must confront expanding terrorist threats. Topping pertinent concerns in Washington and Jerusalem will be an assortment of jihadi groups, some spawned by the al-Assad regime collapse in Syria and some by coinciding reconfigurations of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Houthi criminals. Also predictable are (1) strengthened and dispersed Fatah units beyond Judea/Samaria (West Bank); and (2) variously lethal synergies between criminal terrorist organizations that include al-Qaeda and ISIS remnants.

Under the protective tutelage of an American president, “We the People” are entitled to expect basic safety in world politics. At a minimum, we should all be able to assume that wider and consistently capable circles of public authority remain poised to thwart terror attacks.

In terms of United States law, the authoritative roots of core security assurances go back to 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Though likely unfamiliar to America’s current president and his senior defense advisors, Hobbes’ Leviathan was integral to the political thought of Thomas Jefferson. The erudite author of the Declaration was widely read by all categories of educated persons.

Regarding US counterterrorist preparation, America’s national security establishment must get ready for all contingencies, most plainly jihadi terrorists who seek “martyrdom.” This includes fashioning conceptual foundations for future Osama Bin-Laden “elimination-type” operations.

During the Obama years, one conspicuously major targeted killing of a jihadi terrorist was the September 2011 US drone-assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. That case was notably “special” in one generally overlooked or underestimated aspect: Jihadi al-Alwaki was born in New Mexico, and was therefore a US citizen. At the same time, despite the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protections regarding “due process,” it represented a tactical option that could sometime need to be repeated.

Here, a presumptively effective tactic would simultaneously undermine American law and justice.

What should be decided in Washington? Each and every trade-off option would be injurious. Even if we take with utmost seriousness Cicero’s reasonable injunction (“The safety of the people shall be the highest law”), it’s not clear which operational choices would best serve such indispensable “safety?”

What precise legal guidelines should Americans follow in these settings?

To respond properly, Trump and his designated counselors will need to inquire: “Is it sufficiently legal to target and kill jihadi terrorists if precise linkages between prospective targets and discernible attack intentions can be documented?”

To meaningfully answer this critical question, it will first be necessary for Trump’s national security officials to ask whether a proposed terrorist killing plan would be gainfully preemptive or just narrowly retributive. If the latter, a judgment wherein national self-defense was not in any way the underlying operational rationale, authoritative determinations of legality could become more problematic. It would not be sensible to launch risky defensive actions against terrorist adversaries solely because these actions could meet jurisprudential standards.

 It gets even more complicated.

Assassination is explicitly prohibited by US law. (See Exec. Order No. 12333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1988), reprinted in 50 U.S.C.  Sec. 401 (1988)). Generally, it is also a crime under international law, which, though not widely understood, is part of American domestic law.

Still, at least in certain more-or-less residual circumstances, the targeted killing of jihadi terrorist leaders could be correctly excluded from ordinarily prohibited behaviors. Accordingly, such peremptorily protective actions could still be defended as permissible expressions of national law-enforcement.

A similar defense could sometimes be applied to the considered killing of terrorist “rank-and-file,” especially where such selective lethality had become part of an already-ongoing pattern of US counter-terrorism. Earlier, for example, the United States widened the scope of its permissible terrorist targeting in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. This widened arc of permissibility — one which now modifies more stringent rules of engagement concerning human target identification — represented a byproduct of continuously developing drone technologies.

In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no need for any decentralized or “vigilante” expressions of international justice. Obviously, we don’t yet live in such an ideal world. Instead, enduring uneasily in an historically anarchic world order- – a context that international law professors prefer to call “Westphalian.”

At some still-indeterminable point, terrorist escalations could lead to instances of chemical, biological or nuclear attack. These unprecedented attacks (ones that are sui generis in law) might be undertaken by assorted sub-state adversaries or by certain “hybrid” combinations of state and sub-state foes. Ironically, in the policies of US ally Israel, dominant concerns have centered on Iran-Hezbollah and Iran/Hamas combinations. Here, an evident irony stems from the fact that one Iranian surrogate (Hezbollah) is Shiite while the other (Hamas) is Sunni.

In our persistently anarchic and prospectively chaotic world legal system, assorted jihadi leaders are already responsible for the mass killing of noncombatant men, women, and children of many different nationalities. It follows that wherever such leaders are not suitably “terminated” by the United States or Israel in the tumultuous Middle East, egregious terror crimes will almost certainly continue and be left unpunished.

Any impunity would be inconsistent with the universal legal obligation to punish international crimes, a jus cogens or peremptory obligation reaffirmed at the original Nuremberg Tribunal and in the subsequent Nuremberg Principles.

Inevitably, complex considerations of law and tactics will intersect and inter-penetrate. In this connection, the glaring indiscriminacy of most jihadist operations is rarely if ever the result of adversarial inadvertence. Typically, it is the intentional outcome of violent terrorist inclinations, unambiguously murderous ideals that lay embedded in the jihadist terrorist leader’s operative views of insurgency.

For jihadists, there can never be meaningful distinctions between civilians and non-civilians, between innocents and non-innocents. For these active or latent terrorist murderers, all that really matters are unassailably immutable distinctions between Muslims, “apostates” and “unbelievers.”

As for the apostates and unbelievers, it’s quite simple. Their lives, believe the jihadists, have no value. Prima facie, they have no immunizing sanctity. In law, both international and national, every government has the right and obligation to protect its citizens against external harms.

Usually, assassination is a certifiable crime under international law. Yet, in our essentially decentralized system of world law, extraordinary self-help by individual states is often necessary, and more-then-occasionally the only real alternative to passively sufferance of terror crimes. In the absence of particular targeted killings, terrorists would continue to create havoc against defenseless civilians almost anywhere of their choosing and with unjust impunity.

A basic difficulty is that jihadi terror criminals are usually immune to the more orthodox legal expectations of extradition and prosecution (aut dedere, aut judicare). This is not to suggest that the targeted killing of terrorists will always “work” — there is literally nothing to support the logic of any such suggestion — but only that disallowing such killing ex ante might not be operationally gainful or legally just.

If carried out with aptly due regard for pertinent “rules,” targeting terrorist leaders could remain consistent with the ancient legal principle of Nullum crimen sine poena, “No crime without a punishment.” Earlier, this original principle of justice had been cited as a dominant rationale for both the Tokyo and Nuremberg war crime tribunals. Subsequently, it was incorporated into customary international law, an authoritative source of law identified inter alia at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

 By both the codified and customary standards of contemporary international law, all terrorists are hostes humani generis, or “common enemies of humankind.” Still, choosing precisely which terrorists ought to be targeted remains a largely ideological rather than jurisprudential matter.

Overall, in his consideration of assassination or targeted-killing as counter-terrorism, President Trump should consider the clarifying position of 18th century Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his most famous work, The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law (1758): “The safest plan is to prevent evil where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.”

Even earlier, the right of self-defense by forestalling an attack had been asserted by the foundational Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, in Book II of The Law of War and Peace (1625). Recognizing the need for what later jurisprudence would reference as threatening international behavior that is “imminent in point of time,” Grotius indicated that self-defense must be permitted not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where “the deed may be anticipated.”

Further on, in the same chapter, Grotius summarized: “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.” Interestingly, Vattel, Pufendorf and Grotius were all taken into primary account by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence.

International law is not a suicide pact. “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.”

Donald Trump is obligated to comply with the rules and procedures of humanitarian international law, yet he must also bear in mind that jihadist enemies will remain unaffected by these or any other jurisprudential expectations. Assassination and broader forms of preemption may sometimes be not only allowable under binding international law, but indispensable.

Conversely, there are occasions when strategies of assassination could be determinedly legal but be operationally ineffectual. Recalling the close connections between international law and US law — connections that extend to direct and literal forms of “incorporation” – -an American president can never choose to dismiss the law of war on grounds that it is “merely international.”Always, President Trump should consider decipherable connections between targeted killings, counter-terrorism, and United States Constitutional Law.

Under US law, we are bound to inquire, should an American president ever be authorized to order the extra-judicial killing of a United States citizen — even one deemed an “enemy combatant” — without meaningful reference to “due process of law?” On its face, any affirmative response to this query would be difficult to defend under the US Constitution.

Operational approval would need to be based upon a reasonably presumed high urgency of terror threat. Any such allegedly “authorized” targeted killing of US citizens would express potentially irremediable tension between indissoluble citizen rights and peremptory requirements of public safety. Going forward with obligatory counter terrorist preparations, the US president will need to keep this firmly in mind.

US policy on assassination or targeted killing will have to reflect a very delicate balance. Most important, in any such calculation, will be the protection of civilian populations from jihadist terror-inflicted harms. In those circumstances where harms would involve unconventional weapons of any sort — chemical, biological or nuclear — the legal propriety of targeting jihadists could be patently obvious (per Cicero, above) and “beyond reasonable doubt.”

In sum, for both the United States and Israel, legal assessments of targeted killing ought never be undertaken apart from correlative operational expectations. This means that before any “extraordinary remedies” should be applied, these measures would be not only legally correct, but tactically cost-effective. In the end, as we may finally be reminded by Cicero in The Laws, “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”

Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by Jewish Business News.

The post What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

‘Totally Obliterated’: US Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Trump Declares Operation a Success

US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 21, 2025, following US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool

The United States launched a large-scale military strike against Iran early Saturday, destroying key nuclear enrichment facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordow site.

US President Donald Trump said in a public address that the operation had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities and urged Tehran to “make peace,” warning that any future aggression would be met with even greater force.

The multi-pronged strike combined stealth B‑2 Spirit bombers deploying bunker-buster bombs with Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — all central to the Iranian nuclear program — were targeted in a coordinated assault. US military officials said the campaign neutralized Iran’s main enrichment operations

Trump praised Israel’s role in coordinating the response and hailed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a key partner, saying the two leaders worked “as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.” Netanyahu, for his part, called the American action “unmatched” and said it signaled a shift toward restoring regional stability.

Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the operation as a breach of sovereignty and international law, vowing to respond with force. Hours after the strike, Iran retaliated by unleashing a salvo of roughly 30 ballistic and hypersonic missiles toward central Israel. Several missiles hit urban centers including Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Haifa, and surrounding areas, causing injuries to at least 25 civilians and extensive property damage. Israel closed its airspace and instructed residents in key regions to only venture out for essential activities. In response, Israeli jets struck military targets in Iran, including missile launch sites and rocket depots. 

Domestically, Trump’s decision exposed sharp political divisions in Washington. Republican hawks applauded the move as decisive, while isolationists and some constitutional conservatives questioned the legality of bypassing Congress, demanding oversight before further military escalation. Meanwhile, the United Nations and key US allies, including Britain and France, urged caution and a swift return to diplomatic solutions.  

Iranian state media reported that most nuclear material was evacuated from Fordow ahead of the strike, the Reuters news agency reported. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, said it detected no spike in off-site radiation.

According to Arab sources cited in The Wall Street Journal, the United States sent messages via regional intermediaries to reassure Tehran that the strike was a one-off and not part of a campaign to topple the regime. A senior US official confirmed that the administration clarified it had no intention of pursuing regime change and that the door remained open to renewed negotiations.

US Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), co-sponsors of a bipartisan resolution to block unauthorized military action in Iran, criticized Trump’s strike as unconstitutional. Massie called the move illegal, while Khanna urged Congress to immediately vote on their Iran War Powers Resolution “to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), meanwhile, called for Trump’s ouster, claiming it violated the US Constitution and as such was an impeachable offense.

“The president’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” she said. 

Arsen Ostrovsky, a leading human rights lawyer and CEO of the International Legal Forum, rejected the criticism. He said Trump was acting well within his powers under Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president authority as commander-in-chief to protect national security. 

“This is not without precedent,” Ostrovsky told The Algemeiner, pointing to former President Barack Obama’s operation to kill Osama bin Laden and former President Joe Biden’s airstrikes on Iranian proxies in Syria

“Trump did not need the authorization of Congress in order to initiate a military strike,” he said, adding that the action was also supported by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms a nation’s right to self-defense.

Ostrovsky also defended the legality of Israel’s involvement, saying its campaign was not a sudden act of aggression but a response to a protracted armed conflict initiated by Iran. 

“Faced with an existential and imminent threat from a nuclear Iran, the Jewish state had no choice but to act before it was too late,” he said. He described the strikes as “lawful, necessary, and proportionate under the Laws of Armed Conflict against a genocidal regime that had vowed to destroy the world’s only Jewish state and stood on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, had Israel not acted.”

“In striking Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel and the United States made the world a safer place. They did it not only in their own defense, but in defense of the free world,” he concluded.

The post ‘Totally Obliterated’: US Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Trump Declares Operation a Success first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Israeli Strike on Tehran Kills Bodyguard of Slain Hezbollah Chief

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi lays a wreath as he visits the burial site of former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, on the outskirts of Beirut, Lebanon, June 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

A member of Lebanese armed group Hezbollah was killed in an Israeli air strike on Tehran alongside a member of an Iran-aligned Iraqi armed group, a senior Lebanese security source told Reuters and the Iraqi group said on Saturday.

The source identified the Hezbollah member as Abu Ali Khalil, who had served as a bodyguard for Hezbollah’s slain chief Hassan Nasrallah. The source said Khalil had been on a religious pilgrimage to Iraq when he met up with a member of the Kataeb Sayyed Al-Shuhada group.

They traveled together to Tehran and were both killed in an Israeli strike there, along with Khalil’s son, the senior security source said. Hezbollah has not joined in Iran’s air strikes against Israel from Lebanon.

Kataeb Sayyed Al-Shuhada published a statement confirming that both the head of its security unit and Khalil had been killed in an Israeli strike.

Nasrallah was killed in an Israeli aerial attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs in September.

Israel and Iran have been trading strikes for nine consecutive days since Israel launched attacks on Iran, saying Tehran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran has said it does not seek nuclear weapons.

The post Israeli Strike on Tehran Kills Bodyguard of Slain Hezbollah Chief first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Hamas Financial Officer and Commander Eliminated by IDF in the Gaza Strip

Israeli soldiers operate during a ground operation in the southern Gaza Strip, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, July 3, 2024. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS

i24 News – The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), in cooperation with the General Security Service (Shin Bet), announced on Friday the killing of Ibrahim Abu Shamala, a senior financial official in Hamas’ military wing.

The operation took place on June 17th in the central Gaza Strip.

Abu Shamala held several key positions, including financial officer for Hamas’ military wing and assistant to Marwan Issa, the deputy commander of Hamas’ military wing until his elimination in March 2024.

He was responsible for managing all the financial resources of Hamas’ military wing in Gaza, overseeing the planning and execution of the group’s war budget. This involved handling and smuggling millions of dollars into the Gaza Strip to fund Hamas’ military operations.

The post Hamas Financial Officer and Commander Eliminated by IDF in the Gaza Strip first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News