Should U.S. military use of drones be more restricted?
Related Stories
An unclassified Justice Department memo reveals that the Obama administration has had more lenient rules than publicly known for when drone attacks can be launched to kill U.S. citizens working abroad with terrorists.
The government does not need evidence that a specific attack is imminent, the newly disclosed Justice Department white paper says, only that the targeted suspect is involved in ongoing plotting against the United States.
“The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,” the document says.
The undated document surfaced as Obama administration official John Brennan, who helped manage the drone program, heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday for his confirmation hearing to become CIA director. The hearing will take place as a growing number of senators are asking to see a still-classified Justice Department legal opinion that justifies the administration’s position on drones and is binding on the entire executive branch.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined Tuesday to discuss details, saying only that President Barack Obama takes seriously his responsibility to protect the United States and its citizens from al-Qaida terrorists.
Should the U.S. military’s use of drones be more restricted?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Drones are the most effective military hardware development since the invention of the AFV back in WW1. They permit killing and harassing the sworn enemies of the USA in lawless regions where it would be impractical or impolitic to commit ground troops. By denying the enemy a secure redoubt, his ability to wage war on us is minimized.
The only thing that troubles me is how this capability will be viewed by upcoming generations of our “frenemies”- will it (hopefully) stifle terrorist aspirations in the countries in which drones are deployed, or will it further fuel their citizens’ desire to violently lash out at the West?
I submit that the benefits of using this technology far outweigh the possible consequences.
Here is an excerpt from an article in the June ’12 issue of “Harper’s” magazine. It illustrates the negative (and tragic) consequences of the use of drones against targets imbedded in a civilian population. Though drone use, in the short term, may eliminate enemy elements, in the long term the use may create far more.
http://harpers.org/archive/2012/06/eye-of-the-drone/
That’s one of my concerns, too, but history doesn’t seem to bear it out. The long historical record is that when a belligerent cultural group gets crushed militarily by another culture that commands superior technology, it tends to recognize the futility of continuing to wage war and eventually chooses negotiation/pacifism over armed conflict. However, the keyword is “crushed” and to achieve that, it is necessary to pursue, engage, and utterly defeat the enemy where-ever he may be. Drones are just another means to that end, and arguable cause less collateral deaths than would HE gravity bombs, the 20th century’s weapon of choice for tactical destruction.
I’m skeptical. If collateral damage from drone strikes produces more individuals to join the insurgent ranks this calls for more drone strikes which produces more insurgents which requires . . . (How many drones can the country afford?) And add to that attacks (drone or otherwise) within countries can result in extremely negative reactions from those governments as well as can spread the insurgencies into such countries and perhaps destabilize governments and potentially set up a positive-feedback domino situation. Drone strikes against insurgents in Mali, southern Libya or southern Algeria, or perhaps Iran (I don’t want to even think about the last one.) ?
If the use of drones results in the geometric growth of insurgents, history will of course judge it to be a failure.
However, there is no historical record of a warlike conquered people continuing to wage war (or sustain an insurgency) after a “tipping point” has been reached militarily and they have been decisively (and often ruthlessly) defeated. Examples are the Scots, Celts, Zulus, Franks, Maoris, Germans, Japanese, Native Americans (those of both North and South America)- and literally dozens of others.
People aren’t stupid. Once they are convinced that participating in a war against the “establisment” will only result in death and destruction for them and their way of life, they will abandon the effort.
The trick is getting to the aforementioned tipping point. History also has many examples of peoples who (for various political/technical reasons) were not conclusively defeated by their military opponents and who continued to be a nuisance to said opponents: to cite a few from the present era, there’s North Korea, North Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
I think we’re in uncharted territory. Mainly we are not dealing with a “warlike people” in the form a country with at least some kind of government. The extremest/terrorist (warlike) elements are in multiple countries and have the potential to be in every country and they don’t wear uniforms nor adhere to any government. Some countries have the resources and the overwhelming support of the population to deal with them. Others don’t. From my view the use of drones has the potential to be an expanding “whack-a-mole” ( whack a terrorist ) effort with the local population all too frequently suffering from, and increasingly resenting, the whacks. The consequence could well be creation of warlike populations.
Our current war is with a culture, not a government. Governments are useful to belligerent cultures but are not a vital component of them; in fact, they can actually get in the way of what that culture is trying to accomplish (I cite post-2003 Iraq as an example of that).
Continuing with the Iraq analogy, things have cooled down there largely because we bit the bullet and committed enough troops to efficiently suppress (a euphemism for “ruthlessly seek out and kill”) the insurgents. Too bad that it had to be mostly done “the old fashioned way”, with boots on the ground.
The young generation of Iraqis may grow up passionately hating the western alliance that invaded their country- or, they may not. Guess we’ll find out; but my money is on the probability that they won’t.
Jay Carney justified targeted assassinations by drones claiming that they result in fewer civilian causalities than invading with an army. So, tell me again, what’s the problem with waterboarding? Especially given the fact that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted that intelligence obtained by waterboarding helped locate bin Laden, and that targeted assassinations by drones foregoes the possibility of acquiring up to date intelligence. But, I guess if intelligence is going to be ignored anyway, as it was in Benghazi, it doesn’t really make any difference.
What does “waterboarding”, and intelligence in regard to the Benghazi incident, have to do with the subject of the use of US military drones ?
One problem with waterboarding is that it, and other forms of torture perpetrated on a captive individual, is illegal under US law. That’s aside from its practical drawbacks, which like the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, could have had dire consequences for our own captured military personnel. Killing avowed enemy personnel on the “field of battle” (the definition of which has been adapted to include the words “or bunker, or safe house, or hideout”) is not illegal, and is in fact the way in which all wars have been won since history began.
The US Senate refused to define waterboarding as torture in a bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy, but now the executive branch gets to define what eminent danger is without judicial review.
Fred just a small nit to pick. The document goes into some nice language gymnastics to present as fact that ‘eminent’ is a very wide open and accepting word that can mean almost anything, but mostly that ‘eminent’ doesnt neccessarily mean ‘eminant’ in the ‘traditional’ way almost everyone would define the word. That ‘eminent’ means anything from, “might” act soon, to, “we have no idea, and we dont care”.
“Eminent” = “reknowned, outstanding”: as in “He is an eminent authority on global warming.”
“Imminent” = “expected to take place in the immediate future”: as in “the world is in imminent danger because of C02 pollution.”
Any such action by the Senate is irrelevant in light of the following four statutes: the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act,and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government” and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” “…the first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.”
How Bush, Cheney, and his gang of co-conspirators have managed this far to escape indictment as international war criminals is one of the mysteries of the 21st century.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
The law review article you linked to does not claim waterboarding is torture. It states: “The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of ‘severe physical or mental pain or suffering’ upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be ‘severe,’ any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be ‘prolonged.’”
With waterboarding as done by the CIA the INTENT is to specifically AVOID severe harm.
Fred, try reading the article instead of skimming for passages that you can quote out of context to support your untenable premise.
Pay particular attention to the fifth paragraph, and also the passage later on that reads “Regardless of its utility or lack of utility as a method of interrogation, waterboarding violates both the letter and the spirit of the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act, and the Prohibition against Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. Accordingly, waterboarding is illegal.”
Clearly the writer thinks that waterboarding is illegal, and is a form of torture.
It IS torture, no matter how “tenderly and lovingly” the CIA goons may execute it (LOL!), but even by any other name the practice is most definitely illegal, for the reasons eloquently and comprehensively explained in the linked article. But you would have had to read the entire thing to have gleaned that understanding.
The paragraph I quoted provides the definition of torture. The writer of the article goes beyond the definition he himself quoted to arrive at his conclusion that waterboarding is torture, and the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bush disagreed that it was torture. In any case, how is waterboarding more dire than targeted assassination?
It has always puzzled me that snipers, drones, bombs and cruise missiles can be employed in war, but during the Iraq war when an Army soldier clearing a building in Fallujah or Ramadi came across a wounded Iraqi that was conscious and armed, and killed him, he was charged with a war crime.
Jack this is from your link
“In 2002, secret memos were issued by Justice Department officials John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, in which they argued that torturing prisoners was not against the law.[10] When these memos came to light in 2004 the administration withdrew them, calling torture “abhorrent.”[11] However, in 2005, after Mr. Gonzales became Attorney General, the Justice Department reportedly issued two more secret memos, authored by Steven Bradbury, Director of the Office of Legal Counsel. These memos, which specifically approved waterboarding and other violent interrogation techniques, concluded that these practices would not violate the Detainee Treatment Act, which was at that time pending before Congress”
You are arguing, unsuccessfully, that the Dept of Justice that declared the killing of American Citizens with out due proccess or any evidence of a crime or intelligence of any possible crimes, has the weight of law, but, the same Dept of Justice that claimed enhanced interrogation is legal……doesnt count.
You also dismissed the committee if bipartisan legislators as not having any legal bearing, then quote an opinion piece by some academic. As least the congress persons have the ability to bring legislation That carries more weight than an academic who works only in the realm of theory.
“One problem with waterboarding is that it, and other forms of torture perpetrated on a captive individual, is illegal under US law.”
No, thats wrong, inhanced interrogation, had exaclty the same Dept of Jusctice legal opnion, as killing American citizen by drone has.
Inhanced interrogation has the added benefit of being approved by a bipartisian legislative committe that was briefed on enhanced interrogation, in excruciating detail. They raised no legal, moral, ethical, or practical concerns, in fact asked if more intense methods might be employed.
No this is nothing more than the lefts double standard in full view. This is jockying for political advantage and has nothing to do with the security of the nation.
If….If it is OK to kill American citizens on foriegn soil with no intelligence, that the American has done anything wrong, whats to stop the govt from killing American citizens on American soil. Talk to Randy Weaver, I bet he has 1st hand experience.
“Committee approval” is not US law. Cite the US code paragraph that approves use of “inhanced interrogation” (sic).
“Law” is what is on the books, not what wingnut opinion or any other yahoo says it should be.
BTW, Randy Weaver (AKA “Ruby Ridge”) happened during Bush the Elder’s administration, and took place in the 12th year of GOP control of the Executive Branch of government.
Yes, Jack deflect and ignore salient facts.
To the ‘Committee approval”. the salient fact is, bipartisan committee voiced no objections……..until it became political expedient years later .
You say drone strikes are legal because the dept of justice said it is legal and the administration is bound by that opinion.
Exactly the same dept of justice that said enhanced interrogation including water boarding was legal
The wording and law of this leaked 2010 memo should be of concern. “It is binding under the entire administration.” Waterboarding is deemed illegal but killing a US citizen abroad without certainty is ok? The wording would imply that any administration official could have sent an armed drone to help our men in Bengazi? Just sayin, but “at this point what does it matter?”
Remember when Pelosi denied being informed of waterboarding and Obama demanded the details of that operation to the full senate? Using the force of a willing media to expose the Abu Ghraib incident was simply done to embarass a previous administration and those incidents put our captured military at risk, not waterboarding.
I say we use drones to fight the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home now.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html
Forgot to add the link
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future,”
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/obama-targeted-killing-white-paper-drone-strikes
The ue of drones should certainly be closely controlled by our military and have gov oversight. When we have enemies who will cause events like 9/11 and use things like IED’s on a very much recurring time base, I think the drones are required … just to keep the crazies in check? Does this question actully have anything to do with waterboarding?
Maybe I’m alone in this, but I find it difficult to believe that we are conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia without the cooperation of the governments that, at least in theory, control affected areas.
Radical Islamist factions such as al Qaeda are a threat to whatever established order may exist in the regions where drones are being used.
Point being that we and the governments of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (and yeah, Somalia has a government now. Sort of) have a common enemy.
Maybe I’m missing something on the news, but I haven’t heard a peep coming out of any of these governments about drone attacks.
Almost all the noise I’m hearing is coming from Americans who don’t like the collateral damage these creepy sci fi machines are causing.
Ok, but this is war. You wage war and you get collateral damage. You get dead babies. You don’t want dead babies then don’t wage war.
The issue is not drones. Drones are just a tool. The issue is why did we go over there in the first place. Who got us into this horrible bloody mess in the first place. And why
Anybody out there have an answer? Or are we just going to qubble over how we are killing people instead thinking seriously about why we are killling these people.
I only checked one: Search ” Pakistan response to drone attacks “. Much more than a peep. As far as government reaction, that’s one thing. The reaction of the population in another (and how the responsive the particular country is to its population).
Smith
What i was pointing to was the obvious cooperation between the Pakistani government and the US military. There is no way that we could be running drone attacks along the Pakistani border without the permission of the Pakistani government.
That whole border region is a disrupted mess as a direct result of the war we initiated with the Taliban in Afganistan. The Pakistani government doesn’t want to deal with al Qaeda infiltrated Afgani refugees any more than we would if they were strung along our border.
Repeat. Our government and the Pakistani government have a common enemy. Ditto for the governments of Yemen and Somalia where we are also running drone attacks And I think we can add Mali to the list of places where drones are being used.
Whatever you want to call these wars of insurrection against whatever these people believe they are resisting, we learned a long time ago, or should have, that boots on the ground attempts to crush these rebellions don’t work very well. And neither does counter revolution via proxy
We send our own people to die and it doesn’t take long for us to change our minds about how important this war might be. We do it by proxy and we never know what kind of god awful allies we might end up with.
We’ve been playing this power game of world domination for the last seven decades. We’ve vanquished all our foes and what have we accomplished? We’re stuck in the same quagmire as the Roman Empire with constant flashfires along the borders. We all know what happened to them. We don’t know yet what’s going to happen to us
I really don’t have any significant issue with anything you said.
Ms Bell you must have posted a response to an entirely different discussion, Because your response has nothing to do with the question of the federal govt ordering the killing American citizens without the right of due process being observed.
I know you consider the constitution a blockade to your Utopian fairy tale dream, but the last I checked it is still the law of the land
The question posed, Mr Williamson, was “Should U.S. military use of drones be more restricted?”
Support for the use of drones rather than troops on the ground is between 3/4 and 2/3 according to all polls done. The question of should American citizens who have aligned themselves with terrorists and are living in areas where they cannot be arrested or from which they cannot be extradited be treated differently than non-citizens who have been identified as terrorists is more complex. A big chunk of people polled simply don’t know.
We’ve been targeting people we don’t like for assassination for a long time. We’ve overthrown governments, disrupted entire regions, murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions of people whose only crime was to have gotten in the way of our foreign policy.
So why should it shock anyone that here and there we zap an American citizen for the same indiscretion.
FYI, due process applies to all persons, Amendment V, not just citizens. The sticking point here is “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” from Amendment XIV.
If you are in what amounts to a war zone, have thrown in with self declared enemies of the United States, does your citizenship status matter when it comes to eliminating you. Why should a peice of paper make any difference whether you are dead or alive or how the decision to murder you is made.
Besides, I wasn’t talking about the Constitution. I was talking about the politics of foreign policy
Ms Bell you keep arguing a different discussion. Obama’s policy is quite clear. Kill American citizens that have done nothing illegal nor taken any action, or is known to be contemplating action, against the United States.
““The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future,”
So you think it is just fine to kill American citizens without evidence?
Because that is what is happening.
I also have SERIOUS problems with ordering the killing of American citizens without due process — no trial (with defense counsel), no judge, no jury. The administration is essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner. At the very least perhaps there needs to be a trial where the defense is present even if the defendant, in person, is not.
Smith,
There’s a problem with your suggested alternative. It’s called Amendment VI. Trial in absentia is not due process.
There’s no way around this. We got stuck on this path when the United States declared War on Terrorism without anyone thinking through what that meant or that if you decide to wage war, you end up with dead people.
I have a problem with the whole bloody mess. And I have a problem with the assumption that American citizens are more valuable and have more rights than other people. We aren’t and we don’t. And surprise. It’s in our Constitution.