What legal justifications did the Obama administration use for targeted killings abroad?
Executive summary
The Obama administration justified targeted killings abroad primarily by asserting the United States remained in an ongoing armed conflict with al‑Qaida and “associated forces,” and lethal force could be used as lawful self‑defense against terrorists when capture was not feasible and an attack was imminent under a broadened concept of imminence [1] [2]. That legal framing was presented in public speeches and classified Justice Department memoranda and was contested by civil‑liberties groups and scholars who say it expands executive power and avoids judicial review [3] [4] [5].
1. The administration’s central legal frame: a global armed conflict
Obama officials argued the U.S. was engaged in a continuing armed conflict with al‑Qaida, the Taliban and “associated forces,” and that this global conflict provided the international‑law basis for using lethal force beyond traditional battlefields [1] [6]. That premise let the administration treat suspected members of those networks as lawful targets under the laws of war rather than as ordinary criminal suspects [1].
2. Self‑defense and a redefined “imminence”
The administration anchored targeted killings in a doctrine of national self‑defense, claiming it could strike when an adversary posed an imminent threat even if the time and place of an attack were uncertain. Legal scholars locate this as a conscious conceptual shift — insisting a new, broader meaning of “imminence” fits counterterrorism against non‑state actors [2] [7].
3. Domestic legal support and classified memos
Officials and Justice Department lawyers produced legal opinions — some classified — that framed the president’s authority to use lethal force against U.S. and non‑U.S. citizens abroad in certain circumstances. Public speeches by senior lawyers sought to translate that internal rationale into a public legal narrative [3] [1]. Reporting says extracts of a secret DOJ memo were shown to reporters and used to justify specific strikes [8].
4. Process protections the administration said it used
The White House described internal procedures — including multi‑level reviews and the so‑called Disposition Matrix — intended to ensure strikes target those who present a “serious” threat and that capture is infeasible [3] [9]. Administrations framed these as executive‑branch safeguards analogous to due process, while keeping much of the actual evidence and reasoning classified [3].
5. Resistance from courts, civil‑liberties groups, and some scholars
Civil‑liberties organizations sued, arguing the asserted authority to kill Americans abroad without court oversight violated the Constitution and international law; the government responded by asserting political‑question and state‑secrets defenses to prevent judicial review [4]. Legal commentators and NGOs also criticized the gap between the administration’s stated principles and its opaque practices, citing withheld information and a potentially expansive target list [5] [6].
6. Academic critiques: imminence, scope and accountability
Scholars document the administration’s deliberate effort to reconceive imminence to justify preemptive strikes against dispersed non‑state actors, and warn this conceptual change risks weakening legal constraints on use of force and blurring battlefield boundaries [7] [2]. Others have quantified and criticized casualty figures and targeting errors, noting disagreements over how many killed were legitimate targets versus civilians or unintended victims [5].
7. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not provide full access to the classified legal memoranda’ complete text, nor do they contain an authoritative administration tally of strikes and civilian casualties; those gaps constrain outside verification of how the legal standards were applied in specific cases [8] [5]. Reporting and lawsuits show clear disagreement over whether internal safeguards were sufficient, and the administration’s invocation of secrecy limited judicial fact‑finding [4] [5].
Conclusion — competing narratives and hidden levers
The Obama administration offered a two‑part legal justification for targeted killings abroad: a sustained armed‑conflict paradigm combined with an expanded self‑defense/imminence doctrine and internal review procedures [1] [2] [3]. Civil‑liberties groups, legal scholars and investigative commentators counter that secrecy, broad doctrinal shifts, and limits on judicial oversight created a dangerous expansion of executive power [4] [5]. The public record in the cited sources shows both the legal architecture the administration relied on and the persistent, substantive disputes over its legality and accountability [3] [7] [4].