Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What legal arguments did the Obama administration use to justify targeted killings in 2011–2016?
Executive summary
The Obama administration justified targeted killings between 2011–2016 primarily by treating the campaign as part of an armed conflict against al‑Qaida and its affiliates, arguing lethal force abroad could be lawful self‑defense when a target posed a continuing/imminent threat, capture was infeasible, and near‑certainty of no civilian harm existed [1] [2] [3]. The administration also advanced constitutional and procedural claims — notably that due process is not the same as judicial process and that some aspects of targeting decisions are political questions beyond court review — while keeping much of its legal reasoning classified [4] [5] [6].
1. War, self‑defense and the broadened “imminence” test
Obama officials framed targeted killing as an exercise of the right of self‑defense within an ongoing armed conflict with al‑Qaida and affiliated forces. Human Rights Watch summarizes that the administration’s “essence” was to treat strikes on those associated with al‑Qaida as lawful because the U.S. was justified in going to war in self‑defense [1]. John Brennan publicly argued for a more flexible understanding of “imminence,” allowing preemptive lethal action when intelligence indicated a continuing threat rather than only a narrowly defined, immediate attack [1] [7].
2. The internal legal architecture: memos, PPGs and secrecy
Key components of the administration’s justification were internal Justice Department and White House legal documents. A July 2010 OLC memo authored by David Barron was later released after litigation and cited as the basis for the Anwar al‑Awlaki strike [6]. The administration also developed Presidential Policy Guidance and other internal guidelines — some redacted or classified — which put conditions on strikes (e.g., “continuing imminent threat,” infeasibility of capture, and near‑certainty of no civilian deaths) but were often not fully public [3] [8].
3. Constitutional claims: due process, judicial review, and the “political question”
When challenged in court, the administration advanced constitutional arguments that limited judicial oversight. It asserted that the executive’s targeting authority involved national security and foreign‑policy judgments that could be non‑justiciable “political questions,” and it argued that “due process” owed to citizens in this context was not synonymous with judicial process — a rationale used to justify strikes on U.S. citizens abroad [5] [4]. Legal fights (e.g., Al‑Aulaqi litigation) forced partial disclosure but left many core doctrines secret [6] [8].
4. Practical criteria the administration said it applied
Reporting and leaked briefing papers summarized the administration’s operational test: a lethal operation was lawful if [9] the target was a senior operational leader of al‑Qaida or an affiliate who posed an imminent threat, [10] capture was infeasible, and [11] a high‑level U.S. official authorized the strike, with the operation considered an act of national self‑defense rather than assassination [2] [3]. The Disposition Matrix and related “kill list” processes institutionalized those criteria inside the government [12].
5. Critiques, transparency gaps, and competing framings
Critics argued the administration’s approach expanded executive power beyond accepted limits and relied on secretive legal reasoning rather than statutes or judicial decisions. Jameel Jaffer and outlets like The Guardian argued the administration invoked law that was effectively its own, and human‑rights groups pressed for declassification and accountability, citing civilian casualties and possible violations of international humanitarian law [13] [14] [15]. The ACLU and others litigated to force disclosure; that litigation yielded some memos but left substantial material withheld [6] [8].
6. Where sources agree and where they diverge
Sources consistently report that the administration relied on self‑defense, a broadened imminence standard, infeasibility of capture, and high‑level authorization [1] [2] [3]. They diverge on normative judgment: government documents and some commentators defend the approach as necessary and legally grounded [2] [3], while human‑rights organizations, legal scholars, and civil liberties groups highlight secrecy, potential overbreadth, and inadequate judicial safeguards [14] [5] [13].
7. Limits of current reporting
Available sources detail the broad legal claims and cite specific memos and leaked briefing papers, but they also show much of the administration’s reasoning remained classified or redacted; many factual or legal specifics “in the workings” of targeting decisions are not publicly documented in these materials [6] [15]. For claims not covered explicitly in the above reporting, available sources do not mention them.
If you want, I can extract and summarize the specific language from the released 2010 OLC memo and the redacted PPG excerpts that are in the public record [6] [8].