 "Pannun plot accusation exposes US hypocrisy on targeted killings")
“Three weeks after he climbed out the kitchen window, the boy was outdoors with his cousins—teenagers like him—laying a picnic for dinner beneath the stars. It was then he would have heard the drones approaching, followed by the whiz of the missiles. It was a direct hit. The boy and his cousins were blown to pieces. … He was the third US citizen to be killed in operations authorised by the president in two weeks. The first was his father.”
―
Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, Jeremy Scahill
The boy Scahill mentions in his book was American citizen Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old curly-haired, spectacled and goofy son of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-Yemeni jihadist preacher and the first US citizen killed by a Predator drone in Yemen in 2011.
The senior al-Awlaki, dubbed bin Laden of the Internet, was a prominent member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and an online recruiter and spiritual motivator of terrorists who had called for jihad against the US.
Abdulrahman’s death was either collateral damage or a case of mistaken identity as the Predator intended to target senior AQAP member Ibrahim al-Banna.
The US didn’t care as usual. Abdulrahman and his cousins were mere numbers added to the piling civilian casualties in America’s targeted killings.
On December 27, 2019, Kata’ib Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist group in Iraq, allegedly fired 30 rockets at the American K-1 Air Base in Kirkuk killing a US contractor and wounding several others. On December 31, the group instigated thousands to attack the US Embassy, in Baghdad’s Green Zone.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsTwo days later, on January 2, 2020, the Donald Trump administration hacked Kata’ib Hezbollah chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and IRGC’s Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani to pieces with Hellfire R9X missiles
fired from MQ-9 Reaper drones near the Baghdad International Airport.
‘Imminent attacks’ or deterrence against attacks
America ordered the targeted killing of terrorists like Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Awlaki and Soleimani because they either attacked the homeland and harmed American interests elsewhere or were an imminent threat to US interests.
In al-Awlaki’s case, he was closely associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), who tried to detonate PETN on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route to Detroit, on December 25, 2009, and US Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, who shot 13 people dead at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5 the same year.
Two 9/11 perpetrators, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, attended al-Awlaki’s sermons and met him when he was the imam of the Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque, San Diego, California. His name also figured in several other terrorist attacks, including the 2005 London explosions and the 2010 Times Square attempted bombing.
In a new audio message in March 2010, al-Awlaki called for jihad against the US. “With the American invasion of Iraq and continued US aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the US and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said.
Barack Obama okayed al-Awlaki’s killing despite the US and Yemen not being at war.
In Soleimani’s case, most countries, including traditional American allies and rivals, were stunned and feared further escalation in West Asia.
Under the global glare, the US changed its justification for eliminating Soleimani twice.
Immediately after the assassination, the Department of Defence (DoD) issued a statement saying that the US military has “taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation”.
Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”, the US said adding that he also “approved the attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week”.
The most significant sentence in the statement was that the “strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans”.
General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
A day later, on January 3, Trump said that Soleimani was assassinated because he was plotting “ imminent and sinister attacks” on Americans. On the same day, then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo also said that he was killed to prevent an “ imminent attack”.
However, on February 14, the White House sent a notice to Congress justifying the assassination to “deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces and interests”.
US conscience awakens in Pannun ‘plot’
Last November, the Financial Times broke the news that the US foiled an Indian “ conspiracy to assassinate” India-designated terrorist and Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) general counsel Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on American soil.
Pannun, an American and Canadian citizen, became prominent in 2018 when he announced in London “Referendum 2020” to “liberate Punjab that’s currently occupied by India”.
He has been brazenly advocating the secession of an independent Sikh state, posting hate videos and speeches against India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, inciting violence against Indian High Commissions, consulates and Canadian Hindus, threatening India and trying to radicalise Sikhs.
The latest development in the alleged plot is the extradition of Indian national and co-accused Nikhil Gupta from the Czech Republic to the US. Gupta, arrested by Czech authorities when he travelled to Prague from India in June 2023, is lodged inside the Metropolitan Detention Centre, Brooklyn. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire.
The Washington Post reported on April 29 that a RAW officer named Vikram Yadav, the main accused, undertook the operation, sanctioned by then-agency chief Samant Goel.
The sudden awakening of American conscience, especially Democrats, regarding the alleged Indian attempt to target Pannun is laughable.
According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a London-based nonprofit news organisation, between 2010 and 2020, US drones killed 8,858-16,901 people, including 910-2,200 civilians and 283-454 children, in minimum 14,040 strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Obama, a Democrat, ordered 10 times more drone strikes than his Republican predecessor George W Bush.
US attorney general Merrick Garland has said that the Justice Department “will not tolerate attempts to silence or harm American citizens”. FBI director Christopher Wray said, “We will continue to work with our partners at home and abroad to protect our citizens and these sacred rights.”
Five powerful Democratic senators, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen, wrote a letter to secretary of state Antony Blinken seeking a “strong diplomatic response” and “to ensure that all of those who were involved are held accountable”.
Meanwhile, Pannun has been enjoying media attention and American protection. He dubbed the alleged plot as “ transnational terrorism” last November and a “threat to the US sovereignty, freedom of speech and democracy”.
India has denied the charges and Gupta is yet to be convicted. Last December, Modi told the Financial Times that if an Indian “has done anything good or bad, we are ready to look into it. Our commitment is to the rule of law”.
Ministry of external affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal termed the Post report “unwarranted and unsubstantiated imputations on a serious matter” and said that an “investigation of the high-level committee set up by the government of India to look into the security concerns shared by the US government” is ongoing.
Our response to media queries on a story in The Washington Post:https://t.co/ifYYng7CT3 pic.twitter.com/LEIso6euN6
— Randhir Jaiswal (@MEAIndia) April 30, 2024
Pannun is an imminent threat to India
The US has no qualms about targeting its enemies abroad but is trying to corner India in the Pannun case by highlighting his “sacred rights”.
The big question is if India did order the assassination, does the US, which is harbouring a terrorist and anti-India radical, have the right to protest after he threatened to bomb Air India (AI) flights?
Pannun has been holding Khalistan referendums, giving provocative and hate speeches against India and threatening its overseas diplomats.
In January 2021, SFJ announced a reward of $250,000 for anyone hoisting the Khalistan flag at the Red Fort on Republic Day and $350,000 for unfurling the flag at Parliament.
In July 2023, Pannun issued a threat to “besiege” Indian missions on Independence Day.
In September, Pannun threatened Canadian Hindus in a video and asked them to go back to India.
In the same month, Pannun threatened to “divide India into pieces” and said, “Delhi Banega Khalistan.”
#"Bharat ko tukde tukde kartege"
— Mahalaxmi Ramanathan (@MahalaxmiRaman) September 22, 2023
"Delhi banega #Khalistan": #Pannu's rhetoric challenging #Bharat' sovereignty. #Trudeau supporting anti- India forces is a open violations of International laws. #Canada pic.twitter.com/V4MCVbsgP7
In September-October, SFJ organised two referendums on the creation of Khalistan in Surrey, British Columbia, where tens of thousands of Sikhs voted.
In October, Pannun threatened Modi referring to the Israel-Hamas war. In a video, he said, “People under illegal occupation from Punjab to Palestine will react. And violence begets violence.”
In November, Pannun was seen in a video offering $100,000 for the arrest of Indian high commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Verma, for “spreading false propaganda equating ‘Boycott Air India’ with ‘terror threat’”.
Founder of the outlawed #SikhsForJustice (SFJ) #GurpatwantSinghPannun has made yet another provocative statement against Indian diplomats in Canadahttps://t.co/4eFPVFkBus
— News18.com (@news18dotcom) November 13, 2023
In the same month, Pannun threatened to blow up AI flights on the birth anniversary of late PM Indira Gandhi.
🚨 Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun threatens to Blow-up an Air India flight on 19th Nov: Urges Sikhs to not travel by Air on that date.
— The Tatva (@thetatvaindia) November 4, 2023
A similar #Terroristattack was done on 23 June 1985 which killed 329 when Justin Trudeau's father was the prime minister of… pic.twitter.com/9sERBopklw
In the same month, the then-consul general of India in Vancouver, Manish’s car was surrounded by Sikhs holding Khalistan flags and Pannun threatened him in a video.
In December, he released a video threatening an attack on Parliament on December 13, the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack.
#Khalistan
— Punjab Panther (@Punjab_panther) December 5, 2023
Respected @POTUS @FBI @CIA @JoeBiden @USAndIndia @JustinTrudeau
Will you please ask your #American citizen what kind of response he (Gurupatwant Singh Pannu) is talking about ?
How will he shake the very foundation of the parliament of a democratic country ? pic.twitter.com/IRXeEyxD2H
In January, he dared Modi to attend the Republic Day parade “without security” and threatened to assassinate Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann.
In 2020, India designated Pannun, who has 22 criminal cases and 3 sedition charges against him, a terrorist under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency and the Punjab Police are probing him in 35 cases.
Section 18 of UAPA applies to Pannun. “Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or [incites, directly or knowingly facilitates] the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Pannun also assured support for Pakistan after the Balakot airstrike and promised that pro-Khalistan Sikhs will “stand shoulder to shoulder in thwarting any Indian attack” on Pakistan.
A January 8 gazette notification issued by the ministry of home affairs lists a letter he wrote to then-Pakistani PM Imran Khan on February 27, 2019, and other anti-India acts committed by him and SFJ, which was declared an unlawful organisation in 2019.
The letter, with the subject “Pro Khalistan Sikh Diaspora stands in solidarity with Pakistan”, read: “In the wake of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s growing jingoism after Pulwama attack and ensuing Balakot airstrike, we are writing to assure you that at this critical juncture, pro-Khalistan Sikhs from North America, Europe, Australia and elsewhere stand in solidarity with Pakistan …”
Pannun’s actions and open threats prove that he is an “imminent” threat to India, which has the right to take “defensive action” to deter him from indulging in anti-India activities and advocating secessionism further.
The US declared al-Awlaki and Soleimani “specially designated global terrorists” in 2010 and 2007, respectively, and neutralised them.
Similarly, India has the right to take action against a designated terrorist. The US has no right to target India if it takes action to stop a person who threatens to bomb AI jets and offers support to Pakistan to fight India.
Most US targeted killings are unlawful
International law does not explicitly define ‘targeted killing’. As per the general definition, intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force by States or their agents or by an organised armed group in armed conflict against a specific individual constitutes targeted killing. The primary justification for a targeted killing is the threat of terrorism.
In April 2010, Obama placed al-Awlaki on the Disposition Matrix, informally known as the CIA kill list, an information database developed the same year to track, capture or kill suspected US enemies.
The same year, in August, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit challenging the Obama government’s authority to kill US citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
In Al-Awlaki v. Obama, the groups contended that both the Constitution and international law “prohibit targeted killing” outside of armed conflict “except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury”.
“An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military ‘kill lists’ through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats,” according to the lawsuit.
Following the elimination of al-Awlaki along with Samir Khan and later Abdulrahman, the ACLU and CCR filed another lawsuit in July 2012 challenging the killings.
In Al-Awlaki v. Panetta, they contented that the killings violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law and “international law, incorporated through the Constitution”. In April 2014, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. dismissed the case.
In June 2014, the 2nd US circuit court of appeals in Manhattan released a redacted memo in response to a lawsuit from the ACLU and The New York Times citing the controversial 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) law as the justification to kill al-Awlaki.
“We believe that the AUMF’s authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorisation within the scope of the force authorisation,” the memo, written on July 16, 2010, read.
However, even before the memo was written, Obama had already authorised an unsuccessful drone strike on al-Awlaki less than a week after Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011.
In Soleimani’s case, a UN report by Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, termed the killing unlawful.
Though Article 51 of the UN Charter says that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”, it says members taking such measures shall “immediately” report to the Security Council.
Callamard argues that States who invoke Article 51 to justify targeted killings by drones or other tools “owe the international community a thorough justification, not a cursory report”—as in Soleimani’s case. Such reports should include “evidence of the imminence of an external threat and the proportionality of measures to be taken in response”.
Soleimani’s killing also violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which says, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
The killing was the “first known incident in which a State invoked self-defence as a justification for an attack against a State actor in the territory of another State, thus implicating the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4)”.
“In this instance, the use of force by the United States was directed not only at Iran but also at Iraq. By killing General Soleimani on Iraqi soil without first obtaining Iraq’s consent, the US violated the territorial integrity of Iraq.”
Another example of the US violating Article 2(4) was the killing of bin Laden without informing Pakistan.
Moreover, Callamard said that the US didn’t provide “sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to life to justify the attack” on Soleimani.
“No evidence has been provided that General Soleimani specifically was planning an imminent attack against US interests, particularly in Iraq, for which immediate action was necessary and would have been justified. No evidence has been provided that a drone strike in a third country was necessary or that the harm caused to that country was proportionate to the harm allegedly averted. … No evidence has been produced that there was no time for the US to seek aid from the international community, including the UNSC, in addressing the alleged imminent threats,” the report argued.
The US State Department, which expects “accountability from the government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work [into the alleged Pannun plot]”, had accused Callamard “giving a pass to terrorists”.
The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
