• Military
• WMD

• Intelligence Menu               

• Systems
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Imagery
• Links

• Homeland Security
• Space

Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere

November 18, 2002 CIA YEMEN OPERATION: MANY SEE 'ASSASSINATION WITHOUT JURY, JUDGE'

November 18, 2002

CIA YEMEN OPERATION:  MANY SEE 'ASSASSINATION WITHOUT JURY, JUDGE'

 

KEY FINDINGS:

**  Euros, others challenge legality of the U.S. Predator attack in Yemen.

**  Many fear this "first practical application of Bush's pre-emptive doctrine" signals U.S. willingness to engage in "deplorable violations of human rights."

**  Use of this "new and deadly stage in the technology of warfare" poses "great political risk."

**  Several note "imitation" of Israel's "targeted assassinations" policy. 

 

MAJOR THEMES

Many portrayed the operation as turning 'justice...into lynching'--  European writers in particular said the operation demonstrated Washington's intention to make "all the world...a battlefield" in the anti-terror campaign.  London's liberal Guardian called the operation "morally unsustainable," adding "it is, at best, irresponsible extra-judicial killing, at worst a premeditated, cold-blooded murder of civilians."  Finland's independent Helsingin Sanomat cited the growing U.S. "mentality that no rules exist in the war against terrorism."  An independent Hong Kong daily  said the operation's victims should "have faced a judge instead of...a missile."         

 

Such 'arbitrary executions' raise 'serious moral questions'--  Referring to the operation, commentators worried about a return to what Paris's left-of-center Liberation called the "good old days" when "CIA agents have the authorization to kill America's enemies."  In this case, suggested a German daily, the CIA substituted for the rule of law because it "determined indictment, trial and ruling behind closed doors."  Riyadh's moderate Arab News warned, "The U.S. must not persist with this dangerous dishonoring of the rules of justice upon which all civilized societies are built.  If it does, it will be making itself no better than the international terrorists it hunts." 

 

'New quality' of the attacks could result in backlash--  Writers found the use of unmanned drones with an advanced capability to target "suspicious individuals at any time and any place" troubling.   London's conservative Times wondered whose "finger was on the kill button."  Other papers advised against such operations because "far from ending terrorist attacks, policies of state-sanctioned assassination will surely increase them."  Manila's Philippine Star cautioned that hitting "terrorist targets in sovereign states...could deepen perceptions and resentment of American hegemony, particularly in the Islamic world."       

 

U.S. strategy is akin to Israel's killing of Palestinian militants--  Several writers noted the "credibility problem" if the U.S. engages in "assassinations" after criticizing similar Israeli actions.  A pro-government Malaysian paper added that Israel's "targeted assassinations...have proven to be a further provocation to terrorists and an invitation for more terrorist attacks."  Israel's pluralist Maariv called the "adoption" of "Israeli assassination methods of terror activists without legal proceedings...a structural change in U.S. defense policy." 

EDITOR:  Ben Goldberg

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This analysis is based on 22 reports from 14 countries over 5-16 November.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Drones Of Death"

 

An editorial in the liberal Guardian informed (11/6):  "Living his presidency like Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan, Bush etched another notch in his gun butt this week, blowing away six 'terrorists' in Yemen's desert....  [The technology involved] makes the CIA look useful....  The president is keen on hunting down America's foes, on the ugly old premise that the only good injun is a dean injun....   All the world's a battlefield for Bush.  The U.S. 001: licensed to kill.  Even as the bullets ricochet, it should be said there are some problems with this approach to international peacekeeping.  For a start, it is illegal.  The attack violates basis rules of sovereignty.  It is an act of war where no war has been declared....  It is, at best, irresponsible extra-judicial killing, at worst a premeditated, cold-blooded murder of civilians.  And it is also morally unsustainable.  Those who authorized this act have some serious ethical as well as legal questions to answer.   That there is no prospect at all theat they will, and no insistence by Britain or others that they do so, only reckons ever more appalling the moral pit which gapes and beckons.   So where next for the drones of death?...  Stateles, gangster terrorism is a fearsome scourge.  But state-sponsored terrorism is a greater evil, for it is waged by those who should know better, who are duty-bound to address causes not mere symptoms, who may claim to act in the people's name."

 

"New And Deadly Stage In Technology Of Warfare"

 

The conservative Times asserted (11/6):  "The killing in Yemen...marks a new and deadly stage in the technology of warfare....  No terrorist can ever again count on sanctuary in countries beyond the reach of American foes....  The targeting of a car...is a development in mechanized warfare almost as momentous as the launch of the V-1 rocket....  For the Pentagon this brings huge advantages....  The military advantages are obvious.   But they carry great political risk.  Who will have overall command of this new technology?  What safeguards are there to stop a hasty commander giving the order to eliminate the target before identification has been confirmed and political sanction obtained?  And how much will this technology enable...politicians to ignore the restraints of frontiers and logistics to become involved in military decisions?...  Whose finger is on the 'kill' button?  Anything that enhances security or helps the pursuit of  terrorists will swiftly win budgetary and political approval....  Nevertheless, the old restraint on CIA assassinations has now clearly become obsolete.  Western governments must be extremely cautious; acting as judge and jury withing seconds carries more political risk than may at first be apparent."

 

FRANCE:  "Yemen:  The CIA's Hunting Ground"

 

Pascal Riche  wrote in left-of-center Liberation (11/6):  "As in the good old days, CIA agents have the authorization to kill America's enemies.  Washington has described Sunday's operation as its most successful  in its war on terrorism, 'a very successful strategic operation' according to Paul Wolfowitz.  The operation serves also as a message:  From now on the United States considers the world a battleground in its war against terrorism.  This is the first time the United States is claiming a 'targeted assassination' outside a battle area."

 

"Yemen:  The New Anti-Terrorism Front"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos held (11/6):  "After Afghanistan, the United States has opened a new front in its war against terrorism:  Yemen.  Sunday's operation was the first of its kind outside Afghanistan afater the Sept. 11 attacks.  The operation is all the more remarkable because it took place in a country which George W. Bush calls 'a partner.'  Ali Saleh has clearly chosen sides.  But the question remains whether with this new step, the United States may have crossed over the red line established by Saleh himself....  On the eve of the U.S. elections this was a way for President Bush to reiterate his determination in destroying al-Qaida."

 

ITALY:  "America Moves On Targeted Actions"

 

Guido Olimpio commented in centrist top-circulation Corriere della Sera (11/6):   "The lethal attack that killed six suspected al-Qaida militants last Monday in Yemen gives three messages.  The first one is that the United States has decided to catch terrorists anywhere they may be, even if this entails opening new fronts.  Secondly, Washington is adopting more sophisticated techniques--an unmanned missile jet--that remind us of the 'targeted killings' carried out by Israel against the Palestinians.  Thirdly, the action represents a reply to growing threats coming from al-Qaida.  Yesterday the head of the German intelligence stated they expect a 'serious attack' and his U.S. colleagues confirm that the actions of the militants are similar to those recorded on the eve of September 11....  Monday's raid confirmed Predator's effectiveness...but as the lesson in Israel teached us, the military means represent a reply, not a solution.   After a year of campaigning, the CIA itself acknowledges that al-Qaida--and its followers--can strike at any time, possibly against 'soft' targets, as the night club in Bali or an oil cargo ship."

 

"Yemen: The CIA Implements Targeted Actions"

 

New York correspondent Roberto Rezzo asserted in pro-Democratic Left Party (DS) L'Unita (11/6):  "For the Bush Administration it is an important victory in the long war against terrorism, but international law experts warn that the United States is following a path which is on the border of legality."

 

GERMANY:  "At The Wrong Level"

 

Peter Muench opined in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/7):  "Was this a success.as Undersecretary Wolfowitz said?.  The CIA controlled operation marks a new stage in the war which President Bush declared.  This operation took place outside of the standards of the rule of law.  In Afghanistan, there was a clear front, but today, the whole world could turn into a battle theater.  Yemen with its lose state structures is only one example and only represents the beginning. According to Washington's definition, war can prevail only where Al-Qaida and the Americans are confronting each other.  And in a war, nobody has to show considerable consideration for arrests, interrogations and trials.  Then justice is turning into lynching.  The U.S. fight against terrorism is certainly difficult, because it is an asymmetric war.but this fight will not become easier if the Americans accept a leveling down of means and jettison values which need to be defended in the fight against Islamic fundamentalists.  To learn from Israel and its liquidation policy, which Washington also criticizes, does not mean to learn how to win."

 

"Enforcement"

 

Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau noted in an editorial (11/6):  "The CIA has once again arrive in the past....  The war against terror has allowed the agency to abandon its restraint that used to be necessary for political reasons.  Yemen probably gave permission for the missle attack, which possibly killed the murder of 17 U.S. soldiers.  It is also possible that the other men killed by the missile were guilty...and could have been sentenced by a court according to the rule of law.  We will never know, because the CIA determined indictment, trial and ruling behind closed doors....  The United States used to regularly condemn Israeli liquidations of alleged Palestinian extremists that followed the same pattern.  Apparently such U.S. concerns were not guided by principles."

 

The Illusion Of Omnipotence"

 

Bernd Pickert judged in leftist Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (11/6):  "By targeting and killing alleged terrorist leaders the United States does not only demonstrate that it is not interesteds in going after such people with the help of law enforcement agencies--it also undelines its belief that the country is at war.  There is a new quality to such attacks:  The U.S. military can take action in countries and regions that are under no official control and without having to reinstate such control.  Terrorist organizations are being deprived of their safe havens without the United States coming to the area or endangering a single soldier but also without creating new perspectives for the region and its peoples.  In this way, 'failed states' turn into mere staging areas for the great war....  Unmanned drones and their use in targeting suspicious individuals at any time, and in any place, adds a tool to the U.S. arsenal taht is bound to create the illusion of omipotence.  If, however, anything can be learned from the Israeli experience with the killing of Palestinian radicals, it is that such a strategy may kill terrorists but is sure to strengthen terrorism."

 

BELGIUM:  "Hands Free For Cowboy Bush"

 

U.S. affairs writer Evita Neefs wrote in independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard (11/7):  "The President's prestige has increased and his position has been strengthened now that he has the support of the majority of the Americans for his action against Saddam Hussein and terrorism.  His hands are free now....  And, there is not the slightest doubt that Bush will seize that opportunity.  For Iraq he was willing to make a detour via the UNSC....  But in Yemen, where a CIA missile killed six people, he acted solo.  In Yemen, Bush took the right in his own hands - like a cowboy who shoots first and asks questions later.  According to Washington, the action in Yemen eliminated the man who planned the attack against the USS Cole in October 2000 - in which 17 American sailors were killed.  We will never be certain because the bodies (in Yemen) were burned beyond all recognition.  No reasonable person can feel sympathy for the al-Qaeda terrorists.  We must fight them - but not with the same means that they use.  Washington says that the authorities in Yemen approved the American operation.  But, it remains an arbitrary execution which raises serious moral questions.  The suspects could have been tracked, arrested and taken to court.  However, that is not the way the Americans see it.  According to Bush, the United States is waging 'a war against worldwide terrorism.'  That means that (the action in Yemen) is not murder, but a military operation....  The action in Yemen goes much farther than pressuring countries not to give shelter to terrorists and exhausting their financial means.  This is not the same as assisting police services or armed forces with training courses.  The CIA's action in Yemen fits in the Bush doctrine...but in a democracy the judge, the jury and the hangman are not the same person."

 

FINLAND:  "Dangerous Step In War On Terror"

 

Finland's leading independent Helsingin Sanomat editorialized (11/8):  "Yet another example of the world embarking on a course of more dangerous violence was seen in Yemen, when a missile fired by an unmanned CIA aerial vehicle killed six Al -Qaida suspects.  This marks the opening of a new dimension in the war on terror declared by President George W. Bush, since it occurred outside Afghanistan in a sovereign state.  Furthermore, the U.S. faces a credibility problem.  The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said that the U.S. continues to oppose murders of Palestinians by Israel, which have often been carried out through air strikes.  The Yemen murders are based on the doctrine of pre-emptive defensive strikes, which the Bush Administration adopted and is now implementing using a remote-controlled military aircraft.  This model is dangerous because there are lots of countries in the world, which want the right to kill people, they have labeled as terrorists, outside of their own borders.  In a country ruled by law, mere suspicions are not sufficient .... The event illustrates in a sad way the change in thinking that has taken place in the U.S.  There is extensive approval in the United States for a mentality that no rules exist in the war against terror regardless of what jointly approved international regulations say."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL:  "Pinpointed Imitation"

 

Foreign News Editor Arik Bachar wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (11/7):  "Since the '60s, Israelis have been accused of insipidly over-aping America.... This week, a boosted American version of assassination from the air came up.... The Americans, who have frequently criticized Israel over the past two years for carrying out assassinations in the territories, have significantly improved the system, as they are expected to do.... In this operation, the American security establishment has taken the concept of sterility to hitherto unknown heights -- not only from the technological point of view.  The official authorities' PR silence regarding that successful operation should also raise thoughts among many Israelis.... The adoption by the United States of Israeli assassination methods of terror activists without legal proceedings would have appeared exceptional even if it didn't match a structural change in U.S. defense policy; furthermore, it is reminiscent of what Israel learned in June 1981, when it destroyed the Iraqi [nuclear] reactor near Baghdad.... When a minor, or a major, country finds itself at risk, it will do anything to free itself from it."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Utterly Reprehensible"

 

Jeddah's moderate, English-language Arab News opined (11/7):  "The Bush White House is currently in a buoyant mood.  As a result of the midterm elections, the Republican Party now has added control of the Senate to that of the House of Representatives.  The president will see this success as an endorsement, at least domestically, of his hawkish attitude toward Iraq as well as his campaign against international terrorism... No doubt, many U.S. voters will have been influenced by the news of the slaying of a leading Al-Qaeda suspect in Yemen, apparently by a missile fired from an unmanned drone operated by the CIA.  Their government is acting tough... they no doubt took the view that international terrorists were getting some of their own back, and good riddance to them... There can be no exceptions to murder.  They are all crimes, in Yemen, in the West Bank and Gaza, on the streets of Israel and in the center of New York and at the Pentagon in Washington.  The United States must not persist with this dangerous dishonoring of the rules of justice upon which all civilized societies are built.  If it does, it will be making itself no better than the international terrorists it hunts."

 

ASIA-PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Welcome To The Nightmare"

 

Foreign affairs writer Geoffrey Barker had this op-ed comment in the business-oriented Australian Financial Review (11/11):  "The countdown to war with Iraq has accelerated sharply with the assign of the United Nations Security Council resolution....  For Australia the prospect of even limited involvement in a war against Iraq is a grim reminder of dangerously unstable the post-Cold War world has become....  The current mood of the US Administration was revealed dramatically by the recent rocket attack on a car in Yemen that killed six suspected Al Qaeda members....  While the US has defended the attack as a legitimate operation against an enemy, it also seems clear that the US is now in the extremely dangerous business of summary executions of individuals linked to the organization responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.  Welcome to the post-Cold War global nightmare."

 

"Deadly Slide To Assassination"

 

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald editorialized (11/11):  "The United States continues to rewrite the rules of war, raising new challenges to peace. Under the broad banner of the "war against terrorism", the summary execution of people in other countries has become settled policy, sanctioned by President George Bush....  In the Yemen assassination, the US might have left the dirty work to the CIA and kept US forces' hands clean. But it still means assassination has been become policy in a disturbingly easy departure from the conventions of war. Such an assassination might boost American morale. But it also gives a false legitimacy to imitators, not to mention those who will seek to respond in kind. Far from ending terrorist attacks, policies of state-sanctioned assassination will surely increase them."

 

CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):  "Terrorism Has Created The Need To Rewrite Rules Of Warfare"

 

The independent English-language South China Morning Post foreign editor Peter Kammerer wrote (11/11):  "There is a new rule when taking on the bad guys now that the winds of the war on terrorism are blowing with typhoon strength -- anything goes....  With the collapse of New York's twin towers came U.S. President George W. Bush's urgency for revenge.  With the best of Wild West logic, he sent out the posse.  No cowboy is ever known to have kept a copy of the Geneva Conventions in his saddlebag.  But do not accuse the Bush administration of not playing by the rules.  They say that the U.S. is under attack and that they have the legitimate right to go anywhere and do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat....  Technological brilliance aside, the incident raises serious questions. Should not Harthi, a suspected criminal, have faced a judge instead of the blast of a missile?  What authority does the U.S. have to carry out what some would term terrorism in a foreign country?  How can a nation, which admonished Israel for firing a missile into a building in the West Bank which killed a high-ranking Palestinian militant and a dozen innocent civilians, so brazenly carry out a similar act just months later?....  There is clearly a divergence in opinion and an urgent need to review the rules of warfare. The war on terrorism is a necessity and its targets must be wiped out.  But in the process, basic human rights and civil liberties cannot be trampled and ignored."

 

INDONESIA:  "The Sovereignty Principles And U.S. Anti-Terrorism Policy"

 

Independent Koran Tempo commented in an op-ed piece by Lina A. Alexandra of Indonesia's Center for Strategic and International Studies (11/13):  "U.S. action in violating the sovereignty...of Yemen, and even calling it a success, should be questioned.  Should the war against terrorism be waged in such a formidable way as to even violate the most basic international norm, the sovereignty of a country?....  Another perceivable implication is the rise of fear among the Yemenis of possible [U.S.] attacks for 'wrong target' reasons.  This might also happen to other countries, including Indonesia, which  has often been referred to as a den of terrorists."     

 

MALAYSIA:  "Perverse Logic Of The War Against Terror"

 

Government-influenced English-language New Straits Times had the following commentary by writer Farish A. Noor (11/16):  "Because it is America's war against terror, it has also become everybody else's war against terror. Proof, if any was still needed, of America's grip on the rest of the world and its undisputed role as the sole global superpower.  The Yemen attack was a case of murder by decree: US troops were not there to pull the trigger or shove the bayonet into the bodies of their victims.  Though reality is far from monochrome, the black and white logic that prevails in Washington dictates that the world must be divided into the forces of good and evil.  Using a remote-controlled drone aircraft to kill people is one way of simplifying a situation that beggars deeper comprehension, sensitivity and understanding.  Those who oppose the might of the U.S. and its political, commercial and strategic interests are no longer to be reckoned or bargained with, but liquidated in a cold manner.  The irony is that while the U.S. Government and military elite are more than happy to milk the world's sympathy for the citizens of the U.S. killed on Sept. 11, 2001, they are less inclined to afford their opponents the same standards of common human decency and respect.  Those who resort to terrorism are neither stupid nor deranged.  They know the futility of their efforts and the obstacles they face.  In fact, seen from another angle, it is precisely the bellicose and arrogant stand of the U.S. Government that has contributed to the tragedy of Sept 11.  The U.S. Government remains impervious to the protests of other nations and communities against its foreign adventures and foreign policy.  These are the factors that will continue to haunt the U.S. and Americans worldwide, and no amount of force and violence will alter that."

 

"Reign Of Fire"

Government-influenced English-language New Straits Times editorialized (11/14):  "The killing of six alleged al-Qaeda members in a Yemen desert by an unmanned CIA predator drone on Nov 3 has introduced a couple of new dimensions to the United States' war on terror.  One, it suggests that targeted assassination in the name of war on terror is now a policy sanctioned by President George W. Bush.  In short, killing specific individuals in countries where there is no war may very well be the next stage in the war on terror.  Two, the remote-control killing - which is a departure from the conventions of war - paves the way for what may be called robotics warfare.  And what would be the rules in a warfare where drones, launched from another country, are used to eliminate "suspects" - unsuspecting souls in a no-war zone - with a shower of Hellfire missiles?  Then, there is the operational issue: where and from whom does the US get the information needed to identify and precisely track its targeted victims?  Even if America does not believe the rule of law should be extended to non-American citizens, innocents could have been killed for the information may not always be totally accurate.  The implications are worrying.  The US can send a laser-guided drone to fire a Hellfire missile (which would instantly vaporize the target) at any suspected terrorist anywhere.  This disturbing development is consistent with Bush's early rhetoric of smoking out terrorists from their hiding places and hunting them down.  It is summary execution - a deplorable violation of human rights.  Israel's long-time use of targeted assassinations has not been effective at all.  Rather, it has proven to be a further provocation to terrorists and an invitation for more terrorist attacks."

 

PHILIPPINES: "Much Ado About Hellfire"

 

The editorial of the independent Malaya said (11/12):  "A strike similar to the one in Yemen that blew up to smithereens a car carrying an Osama bin Laden lieutenant and his companions will not happen here.  And not because of Malacanang's vigorous assurance that U.S. military intervention is ruled out by American respect for the country's sovereignty.  The real reason is that conditions in the Philippines are simply different from conditions in Yemen. In that country, security forces are unable or unwilling to go after identified terrorists.  The United States had to act on its own....  In the case of the Philippines, where U.S. spy planes...could pinpoint the location of (Abu Sayyaf leader) Janjalani's camp, there would be no lack of...members of the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) volunteering to do the job....  That nagging question over direct foreign military intervention could easily be sidestepped with the use of local forces to do the messy part of the job."

 

 "Hellfire"

 

The editorial in the third-leading Philippine Star said (11/12):  "U.S. officials have promised the international community that the next war in Iraq is going to be quicker and less painful for both sides. This, the officials said, would be guaranteed by defense technology so new American scientists haven't yet finished test runs on some of the war materiel....  Last week a Predator drone zapped a car with a Hellfire missile in the northwestern Yemeni province of Marib.  The attack was reportedly carried out by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. As you've seen in the newspapers and on TV, the missile vaporized the car and its six passengers reportedly led by Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, said to be Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant in that country.  Scary. And lethally effective. But is it legal? That's what certain quarters even in the United States are asking even as Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein must now be quaking in some underground fortress in the Arabian desert, knowing what the Americans have in store for him....  The raid in Yemen was such a success that even before the legality of such operations is settled in the United States, Washington is said to be considering similar attacks in what is now being touted as al-Qaeda's new base, Southeast Asia....  As it is there are already enough protests about the projection of American military might worldwide, with U.S. troops present even in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest site. Deploying guided missiles to hit terrorist targets in sovereign states without informing the concerned governments could deepen perceptions and resentment of American hegemony, particularly in the Islamic world.  Such sentiments could further weaken governments that already have enough problems trying to contain the growth of radical Islamist groups. While a number of these governments - and many civilians - would probably welcome the quick elimination of threats to national security, it won't hurt if Washington consulted the affected countries first before it hits terrorist targets with Hellfire."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

ARGENTINA:  "From The Bush Doctrine To CIA Operations"

 

Ines Capdevila, daily-of-record La Nacion international columnist, opined (11/5):  "This could well be the first practical application of Bush's pre-emptive doctrine (against the threat of any hostile nations or terrorist groups) launched in September. Or it might simply be one of the covert operations following Bush's orders to CIA in October, to get rid of Al Qaida.  The operation in which a U.S. missile yesterday killed six alleged Al Qaida members in Yemen was no covert action at all. And it wasn't unique, either.  During the Cold War, there were allegedly several attempts by U.S. security forces to assassinate terrorist and guerrilla leaders... During the 60's and 70's the CIA allegedly tried to kill six foreign leaders.... After these and other operations were disclosed, President Ford issued a decree in 1976, banning his administration from killing political leaders. President Reagan expanded the decree in 1981. However, it didn't prevent him from bombing Qadhafi's HQ's in 1986, in retaliation for an attack on U.S. soldiers.  This banning results from a decree, not a law; as such, it may be quickly changed by the White House.  But the Bush administration says it's not necessary to do that at times of war, like the present one."

 

##

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.