National Security Model: A Hybrid Approach for Determining the Legality of the Targeted Killing of U.S. Citizens.

摘要

Is the targeted killing of United States citizens legal. There are two competing models that address the legality of targeted killings: the Law- Enforcement Model and the Armed-Conflict Model. This paper examines arguments for and against each model. Using the Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion methodology for legal analysis, it analyzes the facts of the case of Anwar al- Awlaki under each model, and based on judicial balancing tests, concludes that neither serves both the interests of protecting constitutional rights and combating terrorism. The paper will show that while the Law-Enforcement Model offers the greatest protection for the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, it fails to adequately address the threat of terrorism, and while the Armed- Conflict Model effectively addresses threats, it risks violating constitutional rights. The paper considers proposals for mitigating violations of constitutional rights under the Armed-Conflict Model, and ultimately concludes that a third model, based on a system of national security courts, provides decision makers with the best basis from which to determine the permissibility of conducting targeted killings against U.S. citizens. As proposed, this National Security Model avoids the restrictions of the political question doctrine and allows for adequate protection of due process rights for U.S. citizens.