France has adopted a “wanted dead or not alive” policy for French citizens that the French government believes have been fighting for ISIS in Syria.
"We are committed along with our allies to the destruction of Daesh (Islamic State) and we’re doing everything to that end," Defence Minister Florence Parly told reporters at the weekend. “What we want is to go to the end of this combat and of course if jihadists die in the fighting, then I’d say it’s for the best,” she added. French citizens are among the biggest contingent of overseas fighters who have joined IS, with around 1,000 nationals estimated by counter-terror officials to have travelled to Iraq and Syria.
The link goes on to explain that the French have no death penalty and don’t know how to deal with a large population of Jihadist prisoners. Simply killing them in the Syria greatly simplifies their problems.
The Obama administration took similar actions in the drone attacks that killed Anwar Al-Waliki with claims that drone strikes include an internal review within the administration that qualifies as “due process”:
Critics say the kind of due process Holder and Obama are describing is pretty weak stuff: layers of internal administration review, rather than a more formal process involving a court. One oddity of the current legal situation remains that the U.S. government needs some kind of court-approved warrant to intentionally eavesdrop on the telephone or e-mail of a U.S. citizen suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, like Anwar Al-Awlaki. However, using a drone, a missile, bomb or military raid to intentionally kill that same person requires no approval from the judicial branch.
At the same time France along with the UK, the US, and other western allies, have supported sanctions against Russian government for the poisoning of a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, in Britain. For background see:
My question is what are the rules for killing alleged traitors?
If the Russians had used a drone strike instead of poison to attack an alleged traitor, would that be okay?
If the Russian government said that the Putin administration had an internal review and decided that the defector was a threat to their security, would that qualify as due process?