Lethal Limits?

The lead article in The New York Times today, “At White House, Weighing Limits of Terror Fight,” describes a legal battle that could have grave implications for our country’s future, both in the extent of our fight against Al Qaeda and the type of nation we become, based on the values we uphold.

The gist of contention involves the limits of U.S. force against those that would harm us. Can we kill them anywhere in the world, either through drone attacks, cruise missiles or commando raids, or must we have some kind of proof, hold a trial, etc. And should the use of lethal force be limited to high-value targets such as Osama bin Laden or apply to all the “foot soldiers” of Al Qaeda, in whatever splintered network they belong to?

As the beacon of so many values neglected in the world, the United States does have a responsibility to lean over backwards to apply them even when it is difficult or potentially dangerous. We can not operate by the same methods as those who oppose us, who show no limit to their treacherousness or cold-blooded killing. Yes, we need to be vigilant, but we must be sensitive to the countries we are operating in, to show respect for their sovereignty and, hopefully, coordinate with them to capture these individuals and render them ineffective.