What’s wrong with Barack Obama’s drone policy

[unhappycamper]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2013/02/20/whats_wrong_with_barack_obamas_drone_policy.html



Activists stage an anti-drone protest in Washington during confirmation hearings for proposed CIA chief John Brennan.

What’s wrong with Barack Obama’s drone policy
By: David Cole Published on Wed Feb 20 2013

Imagine that Russian President Vladimir Putin had used remote-controlled drones armed with missiles to kill thousands of “enemies” (and plenty of civilians) throughout Asia and eastern Europe. Imagine, further, that Putin refused to acknowledge any of the killings and simply asserted in general terms that he had the right to kill anyone he secretly determined was a leader of the Chechen rebels or “associated forces,” even if they posed no immediate threat of attack on Russia. How would the U.S. State Department treat such a practice in its annual reports on human rights compliance?

Conveniently, the State Department’s country reports leave out the United States. Otherwise, it might have to pass judgment on Barack Obama’s use of drones to kill thousands of “enemies,” and lots of civilians, many of them far from any battlefield. But as citizens in whose name the president is exercising this power, we need to pass judgment. The challenge is that Obama has kept so much of the policy and practice under wraps that it is almost impossible to do this. The leak of a Justice Department white paper defending the legality of killing even U.S. citizens provides the most detailed look yet at this disturbing practice. The more we learn, the more troubling the practice is.

Some critics indiscriminately decry all drone strikes as “extrajudicial assassinations,” arguing that killing is never lawful beyond the battlefield and even comparing the practice to former president George W. Bush’s authorization of torture. But those criticisms are exaggerated and misguided. Killing and torture are fundamentally different. Governments have always killed the enemy during wars, and it is not unlawful to do so. No one accuses Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt of “extrajudicial assassinations” because their troops killed tens of thousands of enemy soldiers without charges or trials. That the Confederate soldiers were American citizens doesn’t change that fact. And even in the absence of an existing war, and therefore outside any battlefield, states are permitted to use lethal force to respond to an imminent armed attack.

~snip~

But the white paper does not limit the president’s authority to kill to members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or to those planning an immediate attack. It maintains that the president can kill an American citizen who is not a member of Al Qaeda, not on a battlefield, not participating in hostilities and not engaged in or planning an attack against the United States when he is killed. What’s more, the White House evidently believes it can kill in secret and never own up to the fact. It has steadfastly refused to officially acknowledge that it has killed anyone with a drone outside Afghanistan.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[demwing]

2. please keep this kicked! / nt