Ryder Tipton

Professor Fort

Due Process

April 4th, 2014

The Due Process of Drone Strikes

Since the dawn of time man has always fought man in

battles and wars. These conflicts for a long period of time

involved hand to hand combat with prehistoric tools.

Extinguishing someone’s life required a personal interaction

with that person. With the development and evolution of

firearms as well as aerial warfare this trait of personal

interaction began to fade. Soldiers still required to put

themselves in some sort of danger to be successful in their

mission, however the risk was greatly lessened. This concept

of battlefield fighting and putting oneself in danger is on

the verge of extinction with the creation and development of

drones. The act of war, which used to be very personal and

confrontational, is being desensitized. This very issue has

1

lead to massive debates as to the rights of citizens and

their right to a trial and due process.

Before one can appropriately assess the importance and

legality of drone strikes, it is vital that one first look

back on the history and evolution of aerial warfare. The

importance of flight has been a factor in wars since before

even the United States Civil War. The forms were very

primitive, consisting of kites and hot air balloons. Flight

during this era was focused primarily on getting an overhead

look at the battlefield and for reconnaissance purposes. It

wasn’t until the onset of the First World War that airpower

began to play vital roles in the outcomes of battles. Early

in World War I the use of aircraft served a similar purpose

to that it had in prior wars. The importance of airpower was

realized and both the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance

stressed development in technology and put a great emphasis

on dominance of the sky. The development of lighter machine

guns and early bombers showed the world that the days of

only ground and naval war were over and to have a dominant

2

military a nation must be able to defend land, sea, and now

air.

Air warfare had hit maturity by the time World War II

broke out. Planes were able to move much quicker and pack a

heavier punch. These new aircraft were able to neutralize

naval advantages and victimize nations with slower ships

unable to defend themselves against a barrage from the air.

Planes brought about massive bombings that decimated cities.

Air power during World War II played a vital role in the

overall outcome of the war. During The First World War

aircraft were a useful addition to an attack, however during

World War II planes became a true mechanism of war.

Aviation technology has only improved since the end of

World War II as well as the weapons that accompany them. In

the 1950’s the United States military began developing the

other vital part of a drone program, cruise missiles. The

military was able to produce missiles that were slower but

could be guided to a target or change targets mid-flight.

The delivery of these missiles still required a human

presence over a battlefield in order to fire and meet the

3

intended target. These restrictions and imperfections forced

the military engineers to work tirelessly in order to create

remote controlled missiles during the 80’s and the 90’s that

would eventually pave the way to the drones that emerged

during the early 2000’s.

The modern drone consists of an unmanned aerial

vehicle. They may or may not be armed with missiles, but are

equipped with cameras for both surveillance and for piloting

purposes. Oftentimes the operator of the drone is not even

on the same continent as the target. A base in Arizona has

trailers where commanders sit at desks with their feet up on

the desks and a joystick in hand. To a citizen it looks

eerily similar to a video game.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001; the United

States adopted a much more aggressive stance towards the use

of drones. Within five months the Central Intelligence

Agency executed the first targeted drone killing on February

4th, 2002. It is suspected that this attack was meant for Al

Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It did not succeed in

eliminating him, and the media began to reveal that the

4

victims of the strike were innocent civilians. This

unsuccessful attack was an embarrassment to the Pentagon and

the debate over the righteousness, fairness, and

effectiveness of drones was born.

Unknown to many Americans, the United States was using

drones before September 11th. The United States had been

using drones to increase the effectiveness of the

surveillance towards targets in foreign nations and increase

the national security. Ever since terrorism took a front

seat in importance to the world’s lone superpower, the

United States has thrown its weight in international affairs

around to the best of its ability. It has done so

effectively in order to better mitigate these risks. The

issues of due process and national security have been two

tectonic plates on a crash course for one another that met

at the opening of the 21st century.

The United States was forced to create a system and

legal document creating standards for drone strikes. The

Department of Justice created a document popularly referred

to as the “White Paper.” This documented the:

5

“Legal framework under which the government can lawfully order lethal operations against a UnitedStates citizen who is outside a recognized battlefield and believed to be a ‘senior operational leader’ or an ‘associated force’ of al-Qa’ida.” (jolt.law.harvard.edu)

The United States Justice Department determined that a

strike may occur only if each condition in a three-part test

is met. The target must pose as “an imminent threat. Capture

cannot be a feasible option. The strike must occur and be

conducted following the rules of war. “A high-level American

intelligence official” must make all three of these

determinations. (thehill.com) Although the White Paper does

not carry any “legal weight,” it has still been vital for

the United State’s establishment of a policy for the use of

drone strikes.

The Obama Administration has received a great deal of

criticism in regards to the guidelines it has developed in

regards to drone strikes. In 2010, the “Legal Advisor to the

U.S. State Department, stated that a nation ‘engaged in an

armed conflict or legitimate self-defense is not required to

provide targets with legal process before the state may use

6

lethal force.’” (jolt.law.harvard.edu) In 2012, Attorney

General Eric Holder declared, “The Constitution guarantees

due process, not judicial process.” (jolt.law.harvard.edu)

These two statements and viewpoints have allowed the Obama

Administration to better justify and qualify their

minimalistic due process procedure when taking “lethal

action against U.S. citizens far from the combat zone.”

(jolt.law.harvard.edu)

In “Legality of Target Killings by Drone Attacks in

Pakistan” by Akbar Nasir Khan, he attempts to highlight the

fact that “drone attacks [are] an extension of war on

terrorism,” and support the current American policy. (Kahn

1) Because the United States is at war with both al Qaida

and the Taliban, the U.S. can therefore attack them. This

theory however becomes rather murky when considering the

legal status of the Taliban. The Taliban does not meet the

two conditions the Third Geneva Convention set forth.

Therefore members could be considered “Unlawful combatants.”

(Kahn 1) Kahn argues that because America is “engaged in an

armed conflict” there is no requirement to provide targets

7

with legal process before the state may use lethal force.

This issue seems moderately clean when considering an Iraqi

citizen that is a member of the Taliban, however it becomes

much cloudier when considering an American citizen has a

constitutional right to due process. Kahn argues that if an

American citizen aids the Taliban or al Qaida, they lose

their right to due process when they associate and align

with these groups that America is at war with. Kahn sees

this as a form of treason, and that it is fair and just to

revoke the right to due process guaranteed to the citizen

for these acts against America.

Kahn does show some discretion when it comes to bombing

“civilian places” such as homes, schools, and other public

gatherings because they are not military targets. (Kahn 5)

He places proportionality in high regard and does not

believe that the killing of civilians can be justified

because it is a violation of Article 3 of the Geneva

Convention and that fighting the terrorist groups would

become immensely more difficult. Justifying counterterrorism

tactics that kill innocent civilians to the international

8

community, to the citizens of the bombed nation, and to

Americans at home would not go over well and terrorist

groups would gain a much greater following as a result of

these violations.

Kahn believes the “procedures and practices for

identifying lawful targets are extremely robust.” (Kahn 3)

Many scholars in the field would disagree that the

procedures the Obama Administration has implemented have a

“robust” nature based on the evident ambiguity built into

the American policy as well as the blatant disregard of the

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Many opponents to the Obama Administration have placed

Obama’s stance on drone strikes in their crosshairs. They

see this shift away from the judiciary as a dangerous

precedent that places far too much power in the hands of the

Executive. Critics of Obama’s stance see due process as a

vital component to the success of the powerful idea of

separation of powers that America prides itself on

revolutionizing. Fair notice and the opportunity to be heard

are the two components that make up due process. It was

9

created in order to restrict “arbitrary government action.”

(jolt.law.harvard.edu) The Supreme Court has recognized

however that due process can become a fairly elastic concept

in times of conflict or national crisis. In Ex Parte Quirin,

which was heard during World War II, the court ruled in

favor of “trying a U.S. citizen for offenses against the

laws of war in front of a military commission rather than a

jury.” (jolt.law.harvard.edu) In considering the due process

of drone strikes one must consider the fact that we are in a

war on terror. This allows the President greater powers and

makes infringing on citizens due process easier.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, an American citizen (Hamdi) was

classified as an “enemy combatant” and was captured in

Afghanistan by the United States military. Hamdi filed for a

writ of habeas corpus. The court ruled that the Commander in

Chief had “constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the

powers entrusted to him by the United States Constitution.”

(Oyez Project) In making this ruling, the court used a

“balancing test” that was employed and standardized in

Matthews v. Eldridge. This test was created to help evaluate the

10

amount of due process required. The first factor was “the

private interest that will be affected by the official

action. The second factor to consider is “the risk of an

erroneous deprivation of such interest through the

procedures used, and the probably value, if any, of

additional or substitute safeguards. The third and final

factor for the court to consider when determining how much

due process is required is the government’s interest.

(jolt.law.harvard.edu)

When considering one’s right to due process in regards

to drone strikes, and looking at the Department of Justice’s

White Paper, issues become potentially more complicated. The

White Paper states “ ’no private interest is more

substantial’ than the interest in avoiding erroneous

deprivation of live.” (jolt.law.harvard.edu) The White Paper

also mentions the government’s duty to ensure national

security against those that pose an “imminent threat of

violent attack.” There is no doubt a gray area that results

from these stances. An issue many scholars have taken with

the White Paper is the fact that its analysis of drone

11

strikes does not focus on battlefield strikes, but rather

areas outside of active hostilities. This ambiguity creates

a slippery slope in regards to U.S. citizens that are being

targeted in countries that the U.S. has not officially

authorized military engagements with. If a citizen is

determined to be a terrorist one could argue “Congress

authorized the use of force against terrorists and thus,

being a terrorist against the U.S. is notice enough.” This

would allow the government to strike on citizens without

allowing the suspected terrorist to be heard.

(jolt.law.harvard.edu)

President Obama and his administration have focused on

the powers that Congress authorized to the executive in

their Authorization of Military Force in 2001. This allowed

the Commander-in-Chief to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept 11, 2001. (jolt.law.harvard.edu)

12

President Obama exercised this power and expanded upon it.

Under the White Paper, if someone is considered to be an

immediate threat to national security then lethal force can

appropriately be used as self-defense. The White Paper does

not specifically define “imminent threat” and leaves the

executive with a much greater power than originally intended

by Congress.

The White Paper also fails to define how much

information is necessary to define a person as an imminent

threat. It also only states that an officer can make this

determination but it does not properly define what rank is

necessary for one to determine the issuance of a drone

strike. This ambiguity in the specifications necessary to

administer a drone strike lessens the total governmental

accountability, which is at the center of due process.

Critics of the White Paper focus on the overall ambiguity of

the document and the fact that the executive can potentially

abuse their constitutional limits.

The Hamdi Court did consider its ruling and the powers

of the President in times of war. It correctly anticipated

13

the President would push the boundaries of their ruling. It

noted “war is not a blank check for the President when it

comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”

(jolt.law.harvard.com) The court furthermore deciphered the

Constitution and its demand for checks from other

governmental branches in regards to the infringement of

one’s due process.

Former Israeli Defense Force member, legal advisor to

the Gaza Strip, and law professor at the University of Utah,

Amos Guiora is considered to be one of the foremost scholars

on the issue of drone strikes and their infringement on

one’s due process. In an interview with NPR, Guiora

discussed his problems with the Obama Administration’s

policy and their implementation of it. He sees the policy

the United States is currently operating under as stripping

one “of your immunity or protections as a citizen.”

(npr.org) Guiora sees the unchecked ability of the

administration as dangerous and unconstitutional and that

killing an American citizen on U.S. soil is an “evisceration

of constitutional protections. (america.aljazeera.com) A

14

major concern he has with the policy is that “the decision

to target and kill is made without any review by the

courts.” (npr.org)

Furthermore, Guiora takes offense to the loose language

that the Obama Administration has set forth. Under his

interpretation of the White Paper, he sees the Department of

Justice facilitating “the potential harm to human life-

including U.S. citizens-by an fettered executive determining

whether an individual is a legitimate target devoid of

process and review.” (thefreelibrary.com) Guiora states in

response to a stipulation that a drone strike target be a

“senior operational al-Qaida leader” that, “I’ve been in the

business 20 years or more. I have no idea what senior

operational al-Qaida leader means. I just don’t know what

that means.” (npr.org) He asks, “How senior is senior?

What’s operational? What’s al-Qaida?” (npr.org) These

fundamental issues with the U.S. Drone Policy highlight how

vague the policy really is.

Guiora does not believe that having American

citizenship should give someone immunity to drone strikes

15

necessarily, however he does believe that the standards

should require judicial review and “rest on ground that’s a

little less slippery” because the current policy has “opened

the door extremely broadly as to defining imminent threats

and legitimate targets.” (npr.org)(america.aljazeera.com)

Guiora has proposed a system of “drone courts” in order to

minimize “operational error that would otherwise occur.”

(thefreelibrary.com)

Another critic of the current American policy is the

Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He, like Amos Guiora,

is not against the use and implementation of drone strikes,

but rather the criteria necessary to conduct one. Paul’s

stance on drones revolves around both the President’s

authority and American citizen’s due process. Paul recently

filibustered the nomination of a CIA director for 13 hours

in order to protest the current policy. He disagrees on the

“concept of targeted assassinations, about the president

picking and choosing who to kill in the U.S…. or elsewhere

who have not received due process of law,” and have “just

gotten in the president’s crosshairs.” (mediaite.com)

16

Paul has revisited this issue on a regular basis in the

past few months and has reaffirmed his belief that drone

strikes can be a viable option as long as the target

receives the due process they are guaranteed. After the

Boston Marathon bombing, Sen. Paul released a statement in

regards to drones saying that he “would have been okay with

law enforcement utilizing unmanned drones during the manhunt

for [the] Boston bombing suspect.” He went on to say that

when “a killer is on the loose in a neighborhood” it doesn’t

matter to him “if a drone kills him or a policeman kills

him.” (mediaite.com) Sen. Paul went on to say,

Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. (theamericanconservative.com)

Senator Paul has shown support for Guiora’s concept

of a drone court.

The use of drones has become increasingly popular and

relied upon by the U.S. military during the Obama

Administration. President George W. Bush oversaw fewer than

50 drone strikes in his time in office. President Obama has

17

signed off on over 400 strikes within the past four years.

Daniel Byman describes drone strikes as the “centerpiece of

the U.S. counterterrorism strategy.” (foreignaffairs.com) He

focuses on the efficiency of these drone strikes and their

success in Pakistan, Yemen, and other areas of conflict.

Furthermore, he elaborates on the little risk to the armed

forces as well as the little financial cost to the U.S. in

administering the strikes. Byman believes in the vitality of

continuing the drone program stating,

Drone strikes remain a necessary instrument ofcounterterrorism. The United States simply cannot tolerate terrorist safe havens in remote parts of Pakistan and elsewhere, and drones offer a comparatively low-risk way of targeting these areas while minimizing collateral damage. (foreignaffairs.com)

Although Byman is in full support of the existence of drone

strikes and their existence in modern warfare, he too admits

the current issues with the American drone policy. He

proposes that the U.S. “improve its drone policy, spelling

out clearer rules for extrajudicial and extraterritorial

killings.” (foreignaffairs.com)

18

Byman goes on to describe some of the positive impacts

of continuing and increasing drone warfare. He notes how

effective drones have been in regards to paralyzing and

weakening the al Qaeda hierarchy. The New America Foundation

estimates that during Obama’s presidency, drones have killed

an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist

operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. Furthermore, the data

states that out of those 3,300, an estimated 50 were “senior

leaders” who cannot be replaced easily. Drone warfare has

“turned al Qaeda’s command and training structures into a

liability.” (foreignaffairs.com) Another argument that Byman

uses, that is worth considering, is the issue of states

sovereignty. He comments that “although a drone strike may

violate the local state’s sovereignty, it does so to a

lesser degree than would putting U.S. boots on the ground or

conducting a large-scale air campaign.” (foreignaffairs.com)

Some nations such as Germany originally backed the

development of drones, however, they have recently shifted

their position on the matter. In a draft agreement between

the Conservative Party in Germany and the Social Democrats,

19

targeted killings have been put on hold. At least this is

their official stance on the matter. Some governmental

figures feel that Germany can “support the use of unmanned

weapons systems for the purposes of international

disarmament and arms control,” but they “categorically

reject illegal killings by drones.” (rt.com) Thomas de

Maziere, the German defense minister, has taken a very

different approach on the matter spending “hundreds of

millions of euros on drones,” that are no longer permitted

in German airspace. De Maziere believes that “We [Germany]

cannot keep the stagecoach while others are developing the

railway.” (rt.com) Other German politicians are more on the

fence and are taking less radical stances in regards to

targeted unmanned killings. Sevim Dagdelen, a German Member

of Parliament, has come forth with her own interpretation of

the German stance. She believes that “by allowing the US

military bases in Germany,” the German nation cannot say

they are truly and completely rejecting the use of drone

strikes. (rt.com) The use of drones is a hotbed issue for

the upcoming elections. Some politicians are voicing their

20

beliefs for or against them, whereas some others are

attempting to stay neutral for the time being.

Israel lacks a direct and concise policy in regards to

the due process of drone strikes. Their official statement

is that;

The State of Israel is committed to the rule oflaw and places great emphasis on conducting itsmilitary operations in accordance with international law, including in the context of its armed conflicts with terrorist organizations. (law.idf.il)

Under this broad definition Israel elaborates on

some of the Modern Challenges that they face in

Counterterrorism warfare. They discuss the success

of operations against terrorist organizations in the

Gaza Strip and the recourse the Palestinian

terrorist groups have had as well as the Palestinian

violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Furthermore, the Israeli policy mentions the

deliberate challenges that terrorists exploit when

intermingling with innocent civilians. It abuses

“the commitment of law-abiding states, such as

21

Israel, to comply with international law.”

(law.idf.il)

Israel then documents the Legal Framework that

they must follow in accordance to Law of Armed

Conflict (LOAC). According to LOAC, it is

“permissible to attack combatants as well as

civilians taking direct part in hostilities.”

(law.idf.il) Israel officially states that it only

directs its strikes against lawful targets. The

state states “it is permissible to attack civilians

during such time as they take a direct part in

hostilities.” The state does recognize the

importance of proportionality and takes the expected

collateral damage in consideration in every strike

they launch. Israel often “applies rules that are

more stringent than those required by international

law.” (law.idf.il) These laws are derived from the

Supreme Court, which set forth a general guide and

administrative law in regards to targeted killings.

22

The decision making process in Israel is also

more complex and subject to more review than that of

the United States. These decisions are made “through

highly regulated operational processes.”

(law.idf.il) The decision to strike is first subject

to international law. Then Israel determines if the

target meets their requirements that were created by

both military commanders as well as legal council.

The military officers and commanders that are

instrumental in the decision making process for

drone strikes learn the laws of armed conflict

“under the guidance of skilled legal advisers with

expertise in the subject.” (law.idf.il)

The State of Israel has attempted to be transparent to

the international community. Israel recently opened itself

to an examination by a former Israeli Supreme Court Judge,

as well as other academic experts, former Israeli public

service officials, and two international observers from the

Turkel Commission. The international observers found that

the state of Israel complied with the “obligations of the

23

State of Israel under the rules of international law.”

(law.idf.il) The commission recommended amendments to the

current Israeli policy. These recommendations are

“currently being studied by an inter-agency committee

specially designated for the task by the Israeli

government.” (law.idf.il) Each nation that has drone strike

capabilities vary in their policies. The German Policy has

changed greatly and does not currently support the use of

them. The Israeli policy is very detailed and under review

by both their judiciary as well as unbiased international

mediators. The United States policy is vague and open-ended.

During U.S. involvement in Yemen in 2011, three U.S.

citizens were killed by an ordered drone strike. This drone

strike took place at “an open-air restaurant in Yemen.”

(ccrjustice.org) The CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)

and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) filed “a

federal lawsuit against senior CIA and military officials.”

The case centered on the government’s decision to order the

targeted killing of three U.S. citizens. The CCR and ACLU

challenged the due process of the strikes. Under their

24

impression, lethal force was not necessary, that the

citizens did not pose an imminent threat, and that the

government did not consider the proportionality of the

strike by killing innocent civilians as well. The CCR and

ACLU argued that this was a blatant violation of these

citizens’ constitutional right and were deprived of their

lives without proper due process of law required under the

Fifth Amendment.

Upon notice of the filing, the Department of Justice

asked the court to dismiss the case. The DOJ argues “

‘political questions’ and national security issues bar

judicial review.” (aclu.org) The plaintiffs in this case

looked to the 2004 Supreme Court case, Rasul v. Bush, as

precedent for judicial review of the executive in regards to

the due process of “prisoners.” (alcu.org) The former

Federal Judge, John J. Gibbons, who represented the

Guantanamo Bay detainees in Rasul v. Bush, argued “state of war

is not a blank check for the executive branch when civil

liberties are at stake.”

25

In Al-Aulaqui v Panetta, the court dismissed the case

claiming that the grandfather of one of the victims “lacked

the standing to file the suit.” (nydailynews.com) This issue

of drone strikes and their due process is far from over.

This case simply cracked the dam of the issues at the

forefront of this issue. Unless a more concrete and viable

definition and policy for this is set forth, the courts will

eventually be forced to hear a case regarding the due

process of drone strikes on American citizens.

A suggestion to ensure some form of due process

guaranteed to every America that Amos Guiora has presented

would be the implementation of Drone Courts. He states in

his paper “Targeted Killing: When Proportionality Gets All

Out of Proportion” that Drone Courts free of executive

influence could help clarify many of these issues. If the

courts had a “clear criteria and subject to true judicial

oversight” then they would assure drone strikes were used

only when necessary and “minimize operational error.

(volokh.com)

26

In Guiora’s proposal in his “Targeted Killings” paper

he outlines the structure of the drone courts. First he

proposes that the “intelligence information justifying the

proposed action must be submitted to a court.” The court

would then determine the admissibility of the information

and if it was “reliable, material, and probative.”

(thefreelibrary.com) The court that would process this

information would be the United States Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (FISA). The court would adopt the same

paradigm enforced in criminal law. Guiora is careful to

admit the necessary for a moral and legal basis in conflict

and in counterterrorism operations.

Guiora not only goes into detail about the layout of

his proposed court system, but also produces a viable

recommendation for a “method and process for figuring out

who poses a threat, why they pose a threat, and how that

threat can be deterred or eliminated.” (thefreelibrary.com)

First, Guiora asks “Can the target be identified accurately

and reliably?” Then he follows up with “Does the target pose

a threat such that an attack on the target at that moment is

27

justified or are there alternatives available?” Next he

asks, “What is the anticipated extent of collateral damage?”

Then he follows up these with a three-part question; “Is the

target legitimate, is the intelligence actionable, and is

the response proportional?” (thefreelibrary.com)

These questions cannot be properly answered without

gathering information from three separate sources: human

intelligence, signal intelligence, and open-source

information. (thefreelibrary.com) Then intelligence analysts

would determine if the information is conclusive enough for

action to be taken. This system would greatly reduce the

possibility of error, political bias, or unnecessary

civilian casualties.

Guiora also publishes a system to better define what

constitutes as a “legitimate target.” To ensure legality,

morality, and effective counterterrorism measures the

commanders must properly evaluate the nature of the threat.

Guiora states that a fair evaluation would include: Analysis

of the threat’s nature, Identifying the threat’s source, and

Identifying the timeline when the threat is anticipated to

28

materialize. (thefreelibrary.com) These two systems proposed

by Guiora offer a much more concrete strategy and policy for

America in regards to the use and implementation of drone

strikes.

These two systems do not properly define when a target

can be neutralized however. Even if a target is identified

and the intelligence is ruled to be actionable, the action

must meet the “international law obligation of

proportionality.” If the attack will cause excessive

civilian injury or death then the attack cannot be executed.

The action of the state “must be proportional to the threat

posed, whether actual or perceived,” and also take into

account the “expected collateral damage” from the attack.

(thefreelibrary.com)

After considering these issues and gathering reliable

intelligence on the proposed target, the executive would

then submit the information and evidence to the FISA Court.

The judiciary would assume a dual role in the evaluation of

the potential drone strike. The court would cross-examine

the representative that the intelligence community put

29

forth, and the court would also rule on the admissibility of

the provided information. This proposal would require the

executive to receive judicial approval prior to “engaging in

operational counterterrorism.” (thefreelibrary.com) This

would further enhance and enforce the checks and balance

system that we as Americans hold in such high esteem.

30

Works Cited

Adler, Jonathan H. "The Case for Drone Courts." The Volokh Conspiracy. N.p., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/13/the-case-for-drone-courts/>.

"Aerial Strikes against Terrorists: Some Legal Aspects." Home Page. International Law Department, 3 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.law.idf.il/163-6582-en/Patzar.aspx>.

Bloom, Jordan. "No, Rand Paul Didn’t Just Switch His Position on Drones." The American Conservative. N.p., 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones/>.

Byman, Daniel. "Why Drones Work." Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, July-Aug. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139453/daniel-byman/why-drones-work>.

Guiora, Amos. "Targeted Killing: When Proportionality Gets All Out of Proportion." - Free Online Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Targeted%2Bkilling%253A%2Bwhen%2Bproportionality%2Bgets%2Ball%2Bout%2Bof%2Bproportion.-a0331686139>.

"HAMDI v. RUMSFELD." Oyez Project. Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696>.

Kirell, Andrew. "Judge Napolitano To FBN: Rand Paul ‘Unequivocally’ Did Not Change Position On Drone Strikes." Judge Napolitano To FBN Rand Paul Unequivocally Did Not Change Position On Drone Strikes Comments. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013.

31

Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-napolitano-to-fbn-rand-paul-unequivocally-did-not-change-position-on-drone-strikes/>.

Pergram, Chad. "Paul Ends Senate Filibuster of CIA Nominee over Drone Concerns after Nearly 13 Hours." Fox News. N.p., 7 Mar. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2013%2F03%2F07%2Fsen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns%2F>.

Sink, Justin. "DOJ White Paper Lays Legal Basis for Drones Targeting US Citizens." TheHill. N.p., 5 Feb. 2013. Web.01 Apr. 2014. <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/281069-doj-white-paper-on-killer-drones-and-us-citizens-abroad>.

Sohn, Michelle. "Drone Strikes and Due Process: The Role of the Separation of Powers in Lethal Action Against U.S. Citizens Outside Traditional Battlefields." Jolt Digest. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fjolt.law.harvard.edu%2Fdigest%2Fdigest-note%2Fdrone-strikes-and-due-process>.

Williams, Brian G. "A History of the World's First Drone War." History News Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.<http://hnn.us/article/153148>.

“'We Reject Illegal Killings': Germany Suspends Drone Purchase - RT News." RT News. N.p., 15 Nov. 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://rt.com/news/germany-halts-drone-purchase-763/>.

32

33