Killing by metadata: Europe and the surveillance–targeted killing nexus

Abstract

The attempt to propose a European perspective on targeted killings is problematic to the extent that implies an understanding thereof as an exclusively American practice. By doing so, it risks overlooking the intimate relation of drone warfare with a targeting regime that depends for its functioning upon a surveillant assemblage transcending the American/European distinction. This article understands “Europe” as a fundamental part in the US targeting killing programme. Rather than exceptional and episodic, indeed, the European participation in drone strikes represents a continuation of a practice of intelligence sharing that, originating as a Second World War UK–US agreement, nowadays encompasses an assemblage of countries that collect and share military intelligence with one another. This increasing ability to collect, circulate and analyse a vast amount of data has underwritten the emergence of a distinct “way of war” revolving around the tracking and killing of individuals worldwide. The category of “Europe”, the article concludes, is unable to make sense of these phenomena.

Keywords:

• assemblage
• metadata
• National Security Agency (NSA)
• targeted killings
• European Union
• signature strikes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Bruno Oliveira Martins for his comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes on contributor

Giuseppe Zappalà is a PhD candidate at the University of Reading. He holds a BA in International Relations from the University of Geneva, Switzerland and an MA in International Security Studies from the University of Reading.

Notes

1. US carriers and switching centres, are, moreover subjected to US law.

2. Documents published by the Swedish SVT. See Rensfeldt (2013) and http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm

3. NSA document retrieved from https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/03/13/third-party-relationships/

4. A reorganization of the intelligence community was the main recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report.

5. See Allied Joint Publication 3.3 “Joint Air & Space Operations Doctrine” (NATO PfP Unclassified, 2002), Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.9 (US Air Force, 2006) and Joint Publication 3-60 Joint Doctrine for Targeting (2002).

6. One example thereof is the concept of Effects Based Operations (EBO). For a discussion see Smith (2006).

Additional information

Funding

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the University of Reading Research Studentships in Social Sciences for funding the research on which this contribution was based.