Slog
News & ArtsThursday, February 14, 2013
Politics A Court to Approve Drone Strikes?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:00 AM
The New York Times is calling for one:
No American prosecutor can imprison or execute someone except on the orders of a judge or jury. That fundamental principle applies no less to the suspected terrorists that the executive branch chooses to kill overseas, particularly in the case of American citizens.
A growing number of lawmakers and experts are beginning to recognize that some form of judicial review is necessary for these killings, usually by missiles fired from unmanned drones.
Not so fast, says Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic:
The proposed drone court would raise as many constitutional and legal questions as it resolved. And it would give a congressional and judicial stamp of approval to a program whose effectiveness, morality, and constitutionality are open to serious questions. Rather than rushing to create a drone court, Congress would do better to hold hearings about whether targeted drone killings are, in fact, morally, constitutionally, and pragmatically defensible in the first place.
Well. To the Slog polls!
2
Eli,
It's about time this action by the Obama Administration is scrutinized. Check this out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
It's about time this action by the Obama Administration is scrutinized. Check this out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
3
Hearings are long overdue, as is as our outraged insistence that Congress hold them. It's shameful.
4
Long, loopy post from Sgt. Doom with links blaming Obama and Clinton for everything gone wrong everywhere in three... two... one...
6
If somebody breaks into my house, I have the right to kill them. If somebody is a traitor who is an enemy combatant, I say shoot them dead.
7
The widespread use of drones generates a new set of problems but the main issue is perpetual war waged outside the bounds of international law. Blowback will be immense.
8
I find the idea of allowing any form of trial in absentia, in contradiction to the 6th Amendment, to be more troubling than the extension of war powers to include the drone strikes against declared hostile groups as I understand the drone strikes to operate.
Clearly, my representatives in Congress, as dysfunctional as they are a s a group, need to provide the oversight that should keep the Executive Branch primarily within the parameters of International standards of modern warfare.
Clearly, my representatives in Congress, as dysfunctional as they are a s a group, need to provide the oversight that should keep the Executive Branch primarily within the parameters of International standards of modern warfare.
10
I'm not a crazy Republican, so don't freak out on me when I ask this question...
What's the difference between the following things:
1. A group of soldiers in a guerilla-style war killing someone they believe to be the enemy. This has been happening since the World War I.
2. An SAS-style strike team being landed in a hostile environment to kill a known enemy. True since World War II if not before.
3. "Surgical" bombing strikes against known enemies. It's been happening since planes became part of warfare.
4. An un-manned strike against a known enemy controlled by remote military personnel.
In all cases, there is no court to decide whether the targets are actually proven enemies and no review of whether they should be killed.
So why the extra fuss about whether someone is in the plane or not?
What's the difference between the following things:
1. A group of soldiers in a guerilla-style war killing someone they believe to be the enemy. This has been happening since the World War I.
2. An SAS-style strike team being landed in a hostile environment to kill a known enemy. True since World War II if not before.
3. "Surgical" bombing strikes against known enemies. It's been happening since planes became part of warfare.
4. An un-manned strike against a known enemy controlled by remote military personnel.
In all cases, there is no court to decide whether the targets are actually proven enemies and no review of whether they should be killed.
So why the extra fuss about whether someone is in the plane or not?
12
@9 Yeah, I guess all those people at funerals and weddings broke into our houses too.
@10 Well, just because there's precedent doesn't make it right or legal.
First, would be nice to define "known enemy," "surgical," etc. Usually, military euphemisms/obfuscations. The associated information is all secret and according to the "most transparent government ever" we don't have the right to know any of it. Even if you accept that with the dubious neocon justifications provided by this and the previous administration, Congress needs to grow a pair and repeal the AUMF so they at least don't have that lame excuse. The impetus for that would be to have people give a shit...I know it's hard living with the bravery of being out of range.
Also, according to the government the American defendants killed far away from a battlefield (thus are not "combatants") don't have a right to the incriminating information that enables the government to ignore due process and kill 16-year olds.
Also, google "double tap drone strikes"--a terrorist's dream-- used to kill good samaritans, family members, etc.
@10 Well, just because there's precedent doesn't make it right or legal.
First, would be nice to define "known enemy," "surgical," etc. Usually, military euphemisms/obfuscations. The associated information is all secret and according to the "most transparent government ever" we don't have the right to know any of it. Even if you accept that with the dubious neocon justifications provided by this and the previous administration, Congress needs to grow a pair and repeal the AUMF so they at least don't have that lame excuse. The impetus for that would be to have people give a shit...I know it's hard living with the bravery of being out of range.
Also, according to the government the American defendants killed far away from a battlefield (thus are not "combatants") don't have a right to the incriminating information that enables the government to ignore due process and kill 16-year olds.
Also, google "double tap drone strikes"--a terrorist's dream-- used to kill good samaritans, family members, etc.
13
The fact is, we will never know for sure if the 16-year old boy was just an innocent victim, as his friends claim, or a member of a group targeting the US, as the US claims. I'm sure lots of the people the US claims.
So instead of focusing on individual cases, and trying to dredge up sympathy by citing the victim's age (as if 16 year olds can't be soldiers), let's work on the overall process. Who should be involved in making the decision? What should the standard of evidence be?
It sounds to me like having a court is a step in the right direction of adding more oversight, although secret courts are notorious for rubber stamping administration requests. I don't see any way to have a transparent process when intelligence data is involved, though.
So instead of focusing on individual cases, and trying to dredge up sympathy by citing the victim's age (as if 16 year olds can't be soldiers), let's work on the overall process. Who should be involved in making the decision? What should the standard of evidence be?
It sounds to me like having a court is a step in the right direction of adding more oversight, although secret courts are notorious for rubber stamping administration requests. I don't see any way to have a transparent process when intelligence data is involved, though.
14
The end of the first paragraph was supposed to read "lots of the people the US claims are combatants, are in fact innocent, but also lots of people the Pakistanis claim are innocent, are in fact combatants"
15
I'm trying to point out that the US can kill 16-year old noncombatants and be fine with that without displaying slightest awareness of hypocrisy. Awlaki junior has NEVER been alleged as soldier or combatant. The fact that he is 16-years old is relevant because the US has used killing of women and children as a war crime (crimes against humanity) against other nations.
But where's the evidence that Awlaki the elder was involved with terrorism? There's absolutely no public evidence that he was involved in any operations--but he HAS been highly critical of the US government and that's the corpuscle of "evidence" we're offered: nasty Youtube videos by a Muslim. Must be guilty then.
But where's the evidence that Awlaki the elder was involved with terrorism? There's absolutely no public evidence that he was involved in any operations--but he HAS been highly critical of the US government and that's the corpuscle of "evidence" we're offered: nasty Youtube videos by a Muslim. Must be guilty then.
16
@ 15 That is BS and you know it, the man was a senior member of al-Qaeda. Not because he was a Muslim. Sheesh.
17
In war, there is no due process. That's why we should not get into wars lightly.
The problem with drones (as with much of US military action in recent decades) is that it occurs without a formal declaration of war or any definition or limits on who can be targeted. But it's worse than most other such abuses. At least the war in Iraq, immoral and illegal as it was, had a clear target (Saddam Hussein and his cronies in Iraq) and was approved by Congress, if not by a formal declaration of war. But the drone war has no borders, no defined enemies, no standards, no victory conditions, no end. That's why it's bad.
The problem with drones (as with much of US military action in recent decades) is that it occurs without a formal declaration of war or any definition or limits on who can be targeted. But it's worse than most other such abuses. At least the war in Iraq, immoral and illegal as it was, had a clear target (Saddam Hussein and his cronies in Iraq) and was approved by Congress, if not by a formal declaration of war. But the drone war has no borders, no defined enemies, no standards, no victory conditions, no end. That's why it's bad.
19
@17 As you say, we're far beyond "rules of war" excuses that people throw around because our activities fall far outside "combat zone"--unless you buy the imperialist argument that there is no bound to our combat zone. In that case, there is no such thing as due process anyway, but we might as well point that out. Might as well point out that we've pretty much reverted our understanding of rights to pre-1125 CE.
@16 Glad to see you believe everything they tell you without qualification. When has a government ever lied to its citizens?
@16 Glad to see you believe everything they tell you without qualification. When has a government ever lied to its citizens?
20
@9 I don't need a court to hear the case first. There is a presumption of imminent threat. And I don't need to ask their age, either.
21
I just have a hard time getting all broken up when a drone strike kills some senior Taliban leader. You know the guys that murder young girls because they want to go to school and murder doctors because they committed the sin of giving Polio vaccinations.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS