What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/addendum96 and id is 1 raw text is:
DEFINE THE AUMF OR ELSE DRONE ON: THE D.C.
CIRCUIT'S INCOMPLETE WORK IN BIN ALI JABER V.
UNITED STATES*
INTRODUCTION
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred almost
seventeen years ago, but their consequences continue to be felt
around the world. The United States remains engaged across the
globe, particularly in Southwest and Central Asia, in a war on
terrorism.' Whatever consequences are felt at home, the human toll
is felt deeply abroad, as exemplified by the litigants of Bin Ali Jaber v.
United States.2 As part of the War on Terror, the United States has
been conducting a quasi-secret program of missile strikes fired from
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (also known as drones) at
suspected terrorists since at least November 2001.3 The plaintiffs,
Salem and Waleed bin Ali Jaber, were not suspected terrorists, but in
August 2012, they were killed after being caught in the crossfire of a
U.S. missile strike.'
When surveyed, fifty-eight percent of Americans approved of the
drone program.' The reason for approval is unclear; likely, the
relatively low cost (both in tax dollars and in soldiers' lives) makes it
seem preferable to boots on the ground alternatives.6 But the
program is not without controversy. Some commentators worry that
the United States may begin to deliver lethal force more liberally
since the lives of American service-members are not as immediately
* @ 2018 William Cauley.
1. See Remarks on Arrival at the White House and an Exchange with Reporters, 2
PUB. PAPERS 1114, 1116 (Sept. 16, 2001).
2. 861 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2017), cert denied, 138 S. Ct. 480 (2017) (mem.).
3. Id. at 250-51 (Brown, J., concurring).
4. Id. at 243-44 (majority opinion).
5. Id. at 252 n.1 (Brown, J., concurring) (citing Pew Research Center survey data at
Public Continues to Back U.S. Drone Attacks, PEW RES. CTR. (May 28, 2015),
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/ [https://perma.cc
/Y9B3-OPP5]).
6. Daniel L. Bynam, Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington's Weapon of
Choice, BROOKINGS (June 17, 2013), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-drones-work
-the -case -for-washingtons-we apon-of-choice/ [https://perma.cc/7MVF-BXGA].](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/addendum96&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)