The Globe’s recent series highlighting the opinions of Alan Dershowitz includes a misrepresentation of the American Civil Liberties Union’s position on targeted-killing warrants (“Is targeted killing lawful?” Op-ed, Sept. 17). The ACLU has never proposed that judges issue warrants for targeted killings. To the contrary, we believe that these kinds of warrants would inevitably end up normalizing a practice that is, except in very narrow circumstances, unlawful.
We do, however, believe that courts have a role to play in this context. They should make clear that, outside the context of conventional battlefields, the government can permissibly use lethal force only as a last resort, and only against individuals who pose truly imminent threats. And if the government uses lethal force outside the context of conventional battlefields, the courts should conduct an after-the-fact review of the lawfulness of the government’s conduct.
This is the same framework, incidentally, that US courts already use when individuals allege that government officials used “excessive force” in the domestic law-enforcement context.
We don’t need a system of so-called kill warrants. We just need the courts to enforce the Constitution through the procedures that are already available.
Advertisement