-Extract from US justice department white paper that justifies the killing of American nationals associated with al Qaeda or associates in a foreign nation.

A debate is raging in the United States about the legality of assassinating American citizens overseas if they are associated with the al Qaeda terrorist group, or any of its affiliates.

The publication by NBC News of a memo from the US justice department has revealed the legal spin Washington is prepared to use to justify its ongoing policies of targeted killings of individuals who “pose” a threat to the United States.

But while the US debates the correctness of such operations, the current contours of the discussion focus on the killings of American citizens associated with this extremist terror grouping and its associates.

What about the sovereignty of States where these killings are being conducted? Or the sovereignty of States where such operations may be conducted in the future?

In a bizarre and mind-boggling explanation contained in the extract above, the memo argues that consent of a host nation would make the killing legal, but if approval for the assassination were refused even then the operation would be legal!

If, tomorrow, the US were to target American al Qaeda operatives on Indian or Chinese soil, would that not violate the sovereignty of these countries? How would these countries react?

Are American drone strikes and intelligence so precise that they are able to tell the nationality of the person being targeted? And, what if non-Americans are also killed in such an attack? Would that be simply explained away by terming them collateral damage?

Rosa Brooks, professor of law at Brown University, argues:

...  Using force inside the borders of a foreign sovereign state is acceptable if the foreign state consents. If the state doesn't consent to a US strike but "an informed, high level official" of the US government believes an individual in the non-consenting state poses an imminent threat of violent attack, then – by definition! – the foreign sovereign state can be deemed "unwilling or unable" to suppress the threat itself, in which case, you guessed it, the use of force is also acceptable.

So, if the government of Pakistan hasn’t “consented” to the drone strikes on its territory, it is then deemed “unwilling or unable” to deal with the threat of the al Qaeda and, so, the killings of Americans and Pakistanis and Afghan nationals on Pakistani soil is then lawful.

So, as the US justice department memo holds, if “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” then the assassination is permissible. And, of course, it should be beyond the pale of feasibility to “capture” the target and the operation should be within the ambit of “war principles” (whatever these might be according to the Obama administration!).

But, as Rosa Brooks points out, there are many questions which the American government must answer:

Tell me if this shadow war has any limits, and how those limits will be enforced. Tell me what safeguards there are against abuse. Tell me how I can be confident that the targeted killing process isn't rife with error and abuse. Tell me how many targeted killings equal a war. Tell me if we'll be expanding our shadow war into additional foreign states. Tell me if there's any limit at all on who we can target, and when, and where. Tell me our objectives in this shadowy war. Ending the operational effectiveness of al Qaeda? Ending terrorism? Reducing anti-American violence? Tell me how we'll know if we're achieving our objectives. Tell me if our shadow war is making us safer, or just making our world less stable.

As this is being written, I see an Associated Press story on dawn.com that tells me that as many as 110 Afghan children were killed and 68 wounded in air strikes by international and Afghan forces in 2011.

These were not American nationals, did not pose any threats – imminent or otherwise – to the power, glory and security of the American nation or people.

They were simply kids.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.