US Drone Strikes
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-31/us-drone-strikes
The Obama administration has stepped up the use of drone strikes to kill suspected al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. Join us to discuss legal and ethical issues over U.S drone attacks.
Guests
Scott Shane
reporter, The New York Times
John Bellinger
partner, Arnold & Porter
senior fellow,the Council on Foreign Relations.
former legal adviser for the National Security Council and the Department of State during the George W Bush administration.
Shuja Nawaz
director, South Asia center, Atlantic Council
and author of "Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within."
Hina Shamsi
director, national security project, ACLU
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
This topic is long overdue for discussion and thank you to the Diane Rehm show for raising it. The media has been mostly supportive of the drone effort, usually repeating (without question) the Pentagon line on how effective the drone strikes have been in eliminating top leaders in Al Qaeda. Where drone strikes have been questioned in the media it's usually something pragmatic along the lines of whether the strikes actually produce more radical Islamists than they eliminate. Far more troubling, however, is the moral dimension of what are, in fact, targeted assassinations. The U.S. is wittingly or unwittingly creating a global drone culture that says 'hey, if you've got the drones, use them'. This is simply wrong and will come back to haunt us in the long run. Diane, please hit the moral dimension hard. Drones are wrong.
What really made drone warfare tragic during the Bush days was the publicly announced acceptability of up to 35 innocent victims dying (collateral damage) for each terrorist kill.They created more terrorists to fight then,as they still do today.That weapon still remains a terror tool.The thought of those things now flying over the U.S.A. should get our attention.
If we didn't have drones we'd be attempting to kill these same individuals some other way. Would you like to be the soldier that has to walk into enemy territory to accomplish the task? Or would you rather a robot do it? Really this is not an issue of drones at all, it's an issue of military intelligence and whether we can trust our intel. Drones just allow us to achieve our goals quicker and with fewer risks.
When John Brennan, Steve Preston and Eric Holder talk about drones they leave out that that there are two programs with separate rules and separate kill lists.
What they talk about is the DOD drone program governed by the law of war. Combatants in armed conflict acting under the law of war have “combatant immunity” that makes what is otherwise murder (deliberate killing of another person) legally justified. As a corollary, combatant immunity excuses killing others near a legitimate target – collateral damage – provided it complies with military necessity and proportionality.
What they gloss over is the CIA program. The CIA is a civilian agency with a civilian chain of command and civilian personnel. The CIA is not part of the military and they do not qualify for combatant immunity. So what legal authority permits the President to send them into foreign sovereign territory for an offensive military operation to hunt down and kill a person (U.S. law has no effect in Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia)? Beyond that, what legal authority permits the killing of others around the target of the strike? Collateral damage springs from combatant immunity, which does not apply to the actions of civilians who do not meet the requirements to be lawful combatants. In a non-military action you can’t make a deliberate decision that it’s worth killing ten bystanders to get one bad guy. If others are injured or killed by accident then a defense of accident or mistake may apply, but non-military action does not permit deliberate collateral damage.
Finally, if we have a CIA drone program that operates on the premise that the President can tell anyone to pull the trigger and kill someone anywhere at any time then have we not undermined the Geneva Conventions and the whole rationale behind international humanitarian law? Why have a military and the rules that go with it when the President can just pick and choose when and where the law applies?
Let me add my thanks for your dealing with a very important topic. There is an excellent editorial in this morning's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/opinion/too-much-power-for-a-president...
I would also recommend an article today on the Lawfare blog by Jack Goldsmith discussing the government's refusal to acknowledge that there is a CIA drone program. He notes: "I continue to be surprised, obviously naively so, that some officials leak classified information practically openly while the government is prosecuting other officials for violating classified information disclosure rules."
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/drone-stories-the-secrecy-system-and-...
I agree with Mark, Patsy, and Col. Davis. The drone strikes pose many legal and moral questions. Furthermore, as the technology becomes more widespread, our example will likely be followed. Patsy's observation of how domestic surveillance using drones should worry us is spot on. Our privacy has been well eroded thanks to the cooperation of telecom companies with the government. Now even our backyard conversations will be observed. George Orwell foresaw this, even if he could not foresee the spy technology itself.
We've been harassing the people of the Middle East since the Crusades, yet we've determined it is 'they' who are the terrorist?
efing amazing how the Main Stream Media puppets gloss over the real issues.
Propaganda.....the executive arm of the invisible government.
What about the expansion of DRONE presence in our nation?
http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/05/24/drone-alert/
We elect presidents based on their character, judgment and specific public policies.
The NYT article stated that Bush was not interested or involved in the decisions to choose targets but was keenly interested in the outcome.
I view this as a complete failure by Bush's flawed character to exercise his judgement on these life and death matters. It is no wonder that early drone strikes had tremendous collateral damage.
I am satisfied that Obama faced the issue head on and considered the moral and legal factors in each individual case and personally takes responsibility for the US actions. This is extraordinary evidence for Obama's judgement in action.
Considering the use of drones to attack U.S. citizens abroad, and the use of drones to monitor remote and border areas domestically, might drones be used to attack U.S. citizens domestically? Specifically, are there any moves in the federal government to transfer authority over predator drones to either Homeland Security or various state law enforcement authorities?
Nabil Al-Tikriti
Associate Professor
Department of History
University of Mary Washington
To get more information on this subject, from the point of view of those that have been fighting against the wars and military profiteers, read "Drone Warfare, Killing by Remote Control" by Medea Benjamin. Medea with CodePink and an expert in drone warfare, along with Repreive, a London based group organized to expose the murders and atrocities that take place in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, organized the first International Summit on Drone Warfare and Surveillience in Washington D.C. March 2012. For more info, see www.droneswatch.org
Our society recoils at the idea of abortion yet sanctions as "morally acceptable" the killing of civilians who happen to be in the way of our targets. Our hypocrisy knows no bounds. Just what principles do we collectively uphold with consistency rather than convenience?
I have a question, what happens when other countries try and use the same technology against us? How would we feel if there were Drones flying around our neighborhood chasing down a terrorist? What if the tables were turned. We can't honestly believe that we will always have complete control over this technology.
The day after the NYT piece was a front page piece in the Washington Post saying that the drone strikes in Yemen were radicalizing the local population, creating sympathy for Al-Qaeda. This campaign is not only illegal and immoral, it doesn't work! The only ones who gain are the drone manufactures who are part of the endless military-industrial complex.
The notion that only one factor establishes a "Signature" is clearly an oversimplification. There is NO WAY that we would only see fertilizer and that one factor would create a Signature that would warrant us bombing people using a drone.
Can the guests please talk more realistically? These assertions were ridiculous.
Thank you Diane for covering this subject. I agree with your panelist, who asked what is the "end game" of the use of drones? One particular drone strike that is particularly alarming is the strike against the U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki and two weeks later his 16 year old son who was born in Denver. All of this with no due process. In March Obama signed into law the use of drones over the U.S., while on New Year's Eve he signed into law the NDAA with sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, which have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. How long until U.S. citizens need to be concerned about strikes against themselves on their own soil?
Wouldn't we feel much differently if we had used drones in Afghanistan in 2011 and not invaded Iraq? A few trillion less expense. A few hundred thousand less causalities.
The use of drones in non combat situations strikes at the heart of the constitution, whatever happened to all humans are created equal and due process. This makes whoever decides who gets bombed judge jury and executioner. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed tens of thousands of peaceful people. There's nothing to describe this but wrong. We have become the terrorists.
Some of your panelists seem willing to grant to terrorists a free pass for whatever deeds they may commit in support of a cause (religion, politics, whatever, just pick one). It is unrealistic to speak about rule of law where none is recognized by one party of combat. Rule of law fled the scene when the first airliner (loaded with civilians, of course) struck the World Trade Center. There are no rules in this war, at least for one side of the fight.
Given that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan isn't recognized by many of the inhabitants of that region, how do the drone strikes in Pakistan fit with US counterinsurgency policy?
Insightful comment. I posted the article about our local law enforcement agencies purchasing DRONES and the specter of DRONES in our urban venues coupled with racial profiling is of a great concern!!
Drones are the safest and most humane way to destroy our enemies. We can't worry about other countries abusing the drones. Our focus is to take out terrorists. We need to use all weapons at our disposal to destroy al quida and its' ilk. Those people have no concern for human life.
The use of drones echoes the German use of submarines in the First World War. The Germans may have been legally correct in announcing their policy of unrestricted warefare before they started sinking ships but ultimately lost the war in the court of world-wide opinion.
Like it or not we are at war, and unless we want to bring back the draft we will never have the manpower to get the job done without unmanned technology.
Tcatman wrote:
"We elect presidents based on their character, judgment and specific public policies.'
If that were true Obama would not be president now.
It is my opinion that this outrage over drone use would vanish if there was another successful attack on U.S. soil. I am still embarrassed by the cowardice in the face of the enemy that occurred in mass after 9/11. 9/11 was never about what the terrorists could do to us but what what we would do to ourselves in response.
OH, by the way I do think the drones are a weapons that can be viewed as cowardly. It is troubling to think we as a country can distance ourselves from getting our hands dirty to this extent.
From the point of view of the military industrial companies, their lobbyists, and war profiteers in this country -- if 9/11 had not happened it would be necessary to make it happen.
Denis Kucinich's comments (i.e. that Congress should address this head-on to avoid eternal war) are surely a welcome oasis of sanity in a desert of US arrogance, blindness, stupidity and mindless violence. However as far as big-business-corrupted US "leadership" (Republicans and Democrats alike) is concerned -- that seems to be the whole point -- guaranteeing war into the future.
How else can one explain that while domestic needs like schools and infrastructure are neglected, and with the US military budget at an all-time high (greater than the next 14 countries combined, I understand) -- the easiest appropriations to get through Congress are -- yes -- for the military!!
But this is all taboo -- won't be mentioned on Diane's show ...
Drone strikes inspire and empower the enemy. Is there anyone in charge - military or civilian - assessing whether they do more harm than good?
Arkus Duntov, so McCain's policy that it would be acceptable to stay in Iraq like we are still in Korea would have been better? And his judgment to pick Palin for VP would have been better? Your comment on Obama is ridiculous. McCain was in the Middle East during the 2008 campaign, and he did not even know who was on first until Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.
For the Pakistani people to stop Drone strikes in their country would be very simple. Simply stop allowing terrorists to openly function in their country. I'm amazed that your guests can't seem to figure that out. I mean Really! The solution isn't complicated.