DOJ International Terrorism & Terrorism-Related Statistics 2001-2010

March 26, 2010

* DOJ National Security Division statistical report on terrorism-related convictions, 9/11/01 – 3/18/10

The Justice Department, responded to a congressional request for data on terrorism-related prosecutions and convictions, recently provided the most-recent iteration of an internal National Security Division report containing such statistics. That report, and the cover letter explaining it, are attached. Lots and lots of interesting and useful information here!

Leahy Sessions 032610.pdf

March 26, 2010 NSD Final Statistics.pdf

full text of Koh speech

March 26, 2010

State Department Legal Advisor statement on legal justification for drone strikes

March 26, 2010

* State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh addressing the legal justification for UAV strikes (American Society of International Law annual meeting, Mar. 25, 2010)

A seven-minute video of his speech appears here:

There does not yet appear to be an official written text from the State Department, but it seems that quotes from the text regarding the targeting question were given to ASIL for inclusion in a press release. Here are the quotes from that document:

“…[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:

– First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and

– Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum. …

[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….

[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….

[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….

Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of war – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’”

In addition to the quotes above, I offer you my rough notes from watching the speech excerpt at the link above. I think in combination, the quotes and these notes give you just about everything he said about targeting law and policy:

– Asserts the continuing existence of an armed conflict involving al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.

– U.S. use of force is justified in jus ad bellum terms as an exercise of the inherent right of national self-defense and, in domestic law terms, under the AUMF.

– Whether to target a person in a particular location depends on multiple factors that will be specific to each case, including the imminence of the threat, sovereignty of other states involved, and willingness/ability of those states to suppress the threat in question themselves.

– In response to the claim that personalized targeting is unlawful, Koh gives the example of the killing of Admiral Yamamoto in World War II as illustration that it is permissible in war to target particular individuals with lethal force, if their status otherwise permits them to be killed.

If anyone has the full text of his speech (which I gather also addressed detention and conditions of confinement), or at least a more complete video, please do forward it to me.