– Ta-Nehisi Coates is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues for TheAtlantic.com and the magazine. He is the author of the memoir The Beautiful Struggle. More

The Excellent Age Of No-Fuss Drones And Remarkable War

By Ta-Nehisi Coates

2 Feb 10 2013, 9:30 AM ET 148

I wanted to make sure everyone saw Dexter Filkins’ response to this weeks news regarding Obama’s justification for the killing of American citizens, as well as the hearings to confirm John Brennan. Filkins describes an earlier visit to meet with villagers in Yemen. The villagers were survivors of an attack by their own government against an alleged Al Qaeda training camp.

Except it later came out that the attack was not launched by the Yemenese government at all, but by Americans lobbing tomahawk missiles into the town of Al-Majalah. To be clear there were Al-Qaeda fighters in the village but the ultimate numbers are chilling–14 Al Qaeda dead, 41 civilians, 23 of whom were children:

Later, when I spoke to American officials, they seemed genuinely perplexed. They didn’t deny that a large number of civilians had been killed. They felt bad about it. But the aerial surveillance, they said, had clearly showed that a training camp for militants was operating there. “It was a terrible outcome,” an American official told me. “Nobody wanted that.”
None of the above is intended as an attack on Brennan, who has spent the past four years as President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor. He has a hard job. He is almost always forced to act on the basis of incomplete information. His job is to keep Americans safe, and he’s done that. Al Qaeda’s leadership, particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan, has been decimated. Operating in Yemen, where vast tracts of the country lie beyond anyone’s control, cannot be easy.
But, as the details from the Al Majalah show, even the best-intentioned public servants operating with what appears to be decent intelligence can get things horribly wrong. Maybe Al Majalah was indeed an Al Qaeda training camp–maybe those aerial surveillance images were spot on. But, in retrospect, we know that the cameras missed the women and children.
Indeed, if there is one overriding factor in America’s secret wars–especially in its drone campaign–it’s that the U.S. is operating in an information black hole. Our ignorance is not total, but our information is nowhere near adequate. When an employee of the C.I.A. fires a missile from an unmanned drone into a compound along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he almost certainly doesn’t know for sure whom he’s shooting at.
Most drone strikes in Pakistan, as an American official explained to me during my visit there in 2011, are what are known as “signature strikes.” That is, the C.I.A. is shooting at a target that matches a pattern of behavior that they’ve deemed suspicious. Often, they get it right and they kill the bad guys. Sometimes, they get it wrong. When Brennan claimed, as he did in 2011–clearly referring to the drone campaign–that “there hasn’t been a single collateral death,” he was most certainly wrong.
In some ways, I think the white paper obscures the issue. I certainly am concerned with the when and why of killing treachorous American citizens. But much more haunting to me is what Filkins highlights here–the lobbing of missiles into the homes of people, and compounding it by claiming to have done no such thing.
Again it one thing to say, “We understand that there will be innocent children who will die because of this kind of warfare, but we must employ all available means to secure American lives and interests.” And all another to say as Brennan speaking for the Obama  administration did, “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” In fact, there have been many ”collateral deaths,” but they are of the sort that most Americans will never see and,most of us suspect, don’t much care about.
But if that’s really true, then there is no need to dissemble. There’s no need for words like “imminent” when you really mean “when I feel like it” or claiming that you’re acting with a country’s permission when you’re pledged to acting regardless. Americans need not feel ashamed for doing what states always do–act in their best interests. I think it’s highly debatable whether drones are in our best interests. In fact I suspect we’re seeding future wars.
But our real problem is that we somehow think we’re above our own interests, that our virtue is divine. Our problem is we think we’re better than we actually are. We’ve gotten so good at telling ourselves this.

159 comments

Leave a message…
  • GeorgeA • 4 hours ago

    “Our problem is we think we’re better than we actually are.”
    This hits it dead-on. That is why Americans are perceived as being so insufferably arrogant by other people.

    • ashwingopal GeorgeA • 24 minutes ago

      I agree wholeheartedly. IF the virtue was so divine and the conviction so total, then why don’t we drop troops on all those suspected plots, instead of bombs?Because it’s too risky. Because then it would expose the degree to which we meddle in other people’s business. Because we’re afraid to find out what’s actually going on at ground level.

  • Matt Kuhns • 4 hours ago

    Somewhere in the world, right now, there are very likely people with ambitions to cause violent harm to Americans or some definition of “American interests.” This is basically the underpinning for the “we need these drone strikes” argument.

    The problem is, this is not a new situation. The above is true today; it was true in 1999, in 1983, in 1957, 1903, 1870 and 1791. We have simply slapped the term “al qaeda” onto this constant background-noise threat; the situation itself is, contrary to these baloney claims that “this is a new kind of war,” not significantly different from the situation at any other point during America’s entire existence.

    The one real difference is that we now have new weapons. As a result, people have come up with rationalizations for the methods they want to use, while claiming that they are selecting methods in response to new conditions. That’s self-deluding rot.

    Had Predator drones existed since the republic was founded, I can guarantee you that they would have been in use through most of the intervening years. And people would have convinced themselves that the threat from Native Americans, from pirates, from Mexicans, from anarchist societies, from Communists, etc., etc., etc. demanded their use, and justified any hypothetical but officially-denied loss of innocent life.

    If you believe in a permanent license for America to murder people anywhere in the world because our government believes they may represent a threat, okay, make that argument. (And an argument for why we should presumably be exempt from other governments pursuing the same policy.) But drop this made-up nonsense that there is some special, “new” condition that simply demands a hardheartedness that you otherwise disclaim.

    • Chadlio T. McCool Matt Kuhns • 3 hours ago

      I don’t think “bad thoughts” are the impetus for our current campaign of the use of force. I think terrorist attacks on American soil are. Sure there are millions of people who would like to see America suffer an attack of some sort but this organization had the means and will to actually do it. I don’t think we’re merely fighting “thought crime” .

      • Lorehead Chadlio T. McCool • 2 hours ago

        I don’t think that was his argument. Rather, there have always been attacks on American soil. The Declaration of Independence complains that King George III was preventing the authors from defending themselves against “the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” The slaveowners feared John Brown. In World War II, we (needlessly) feared attacks by saboteurs.

        • Chadlio T. McCool Lorehead • 2 hours ago

          Then I fail to see how his argument applies here. We’re not taking the land of any peoples, terrorists aren’t attacking us for denying the humanity of a people, and we’re not investigating spies. We’re pursuing a policy against people who find our agreement with Saudi Arabia to have established military bases an affront to their religion. They have launched attacks against our foreign military bases and embassies abroad, and against civilians here in America. I disagree with how we are going about this business but I do think the business is necessary.

          • saraeanderson Chadlio T. McCool • an hour ago

            We’re pursuing a policy against people who find our agreement with Saudi Arabia to have established military bases an affront to their religion You go on after this with a list of acts that can be considered acts of war, but this sentence throws a reader off.

            Frankly, it comes across as pearl-clutching shock that anyone might not be on your side, and is precisely the kind of thing that makes it sound like this is more about thought crime than it is about actual threats and acts.

  • Chadlio T. McCool • 6 hours ago

    I’d really like to pushback against the notion that those who aren’t as critical against Obama’s use of drones do so under the impression that they’re aren’t innocent casualties or they do so as if America isn’t acting with America’s interest being the primary factor. Drone warfare is going to induce collateral damage but it’s better than the Tomahawk missiles launched by Clinton, or the wars launched by Bush. I think the “War on Terror” is seeding the ground for future terrorists but this is the war we’ve chosen to fight. If we don’t have the political will to militarize international police to pursue terrorists or the political stomach to accept that terrorism will occur then I think it is important to pursue the policy that minimizes the damage as much as possible. I think putting boots on the ground would be a worse options than drones. That’s the extent of my argument.

    • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Chadlio T. McCool • 6 hours ago

      I’d really like to pushback against the notion that those who aren’t as critical against Obama’s use of drones do so under the impression that they’re aren’t innocent casualties or they do so as if America isn’t acting with America’s interest being the primary factor.

      Obama’s supporters constitute a broad range of people, so I wouldn’t draw a broad conclusion about those who aren’t critical. What I would say is the Obama administration has not been terribly clear-eyed on this. I don’t really know how it is that as late as 2011, one of the president’s top intelligence advisors could claim there’d been no civilian casualties.

      I think the “War on Terror” is seeding the ground for future terrorists but this is the war we’ve chosen to fight.

      I guess my point is that we can make different choices. Part of making different choices is having people publicly disagree with the present choices.

      • Chadlio T. McCool Ta-Nehisi Coates • 6 hours ago

        Brennan was lying, full stop. He has to know better because he’s been the architect of the program. I also agree that having people publicly disagree with the choices we’ve made is important in changing bad policy. I just think arguing against how we prosecute the “War on Terror” is less effective than attacking the policy as a whole. It’s easier, safer, to attack Obama’s use of drones than it is to say we need to move anti-terrorism initiatives under the purview of the FBI and Interpol, and that’s not a shot it’s a general frustration with the criticism I’ve seen so far.

        • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Chadlio T. McCool • 6 hours ago

          But this like torture, right? I’m happy Obama ended the policy. But wasn’t it important to say “Torture is wrong” and “Why are we even doing any of this?” Wasn’t it right to critique both the entire idea of the Iraq War and preemptive strike, along with the sloppy manner in which the war was conducted?

          Isn’t it both?

          • Chadlio T. McCool Ta-Nehisi Coates • 6 hours ago

            I haven’t seen as many arguments against the “War on Terror” as a whole as the Iraq War and we disagree in how egregious the use of drones is. I think torture didn’t flow directly from the War on Terror it was an illegal policy that was completely unnecessary in accomplishing the stated goal of the war. I don’t think you can persecute a “War on Terror” without targeting terrorists, while I’d like to see the military not targeting terrorists at all, I think if you are the use of drones is probably the best way to do so given the admittedly limited knowledge that I have. It’s like telling my son “I’d rather you not fight, but if you are going to fight punch him in the nose”.

            • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Chadlio T. McCool • 4 hours ago

              I haven’t seen as many arguments against the “War on Terror” as a whole as the Iraq War and we disagree in how egregious the use of drones is.

              Then this isn’t a matter of what is “effective” and what isn’t. You think Obama’s exponential increase in drone warfare is good policy. I don’t. I think it makes it much easier to go to war in that it doesn’t risk American lives. I fully expect to see this power wielded with much less discretion in future administrations. There’s no reason why it wouldn’t be.

              • Jim Matthews Ta-Nehisi Coates • 4 hours ago

                I agree it makes it easier to go to war but isn’t one of the main purposes of military technology since forever to increase effectiveness and decrease risk? Canons were effective and decreased risk because marching armies could not get close enough to them if you had enough. What is lacking are codified rules for when, how and why for a drone strike. Without these, then we are at the mercy of personal whim. That is not a way to conduct a war or public policy.

                • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Jim Matthews • 3 hours ago

                  I completely agree with this. I don’t think you can stop the advance. I’m not even sure you should–even in warfare. But we should be humble about what dangers those advances pose to us.

                  There’s been a lot of good discussion around this in terms of new “non-lethal” weapons of war. Tasers, for instance, on the police level.

                  • PrestonWheatley Ta-Nehisi Coates • 2 hours ago

                    Rules will come when other nations have drone programs. The globe lacks central government and Nation-States are only as accountable as other States can force them to be. So long as the USA holds the monopoly on this technology we will not define when or how we want to use it. Until then only a free press and American opinion will have any bearing on what a given administration wants to do with drones.

              • Chadlio T. McCool Ta-Nehisi Coates • 4 hours ago

                I disagree that risking American lives has been an especially effective deterrent especially since we’ve eliminated the draft and started recruiting our army from the poor and often disaffected.

                • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Chadlio T. McCool • 4 hours ago

                  Deleted and edited..

                  I disagree that risking American lives has been an especially effective deterrent especially since we’ve eliminated the draft and started recruiting our army from the poor and often disaffected.

                  I think this is wrong. The Iraq War–which meant the deaths of many Americans–was a large part of why Obama became president. Political leaders always think about the deaths of American soldiers when going to war. The lack of dead soldiers is one of the big reasons Obama–and future presidents–favor drones.

                  Are you really arguing that Americans don’t care less when it’s robots falling down instead of Americans? Do you really think it’s only about civilian casualties in foreign countries?

    • Yi Li Chadlio T. McCool • 2 hours ago

      You’re absolutely right. Drones cause less collateral damage than any form of conventional warfare– that’s not my problem with it, and neither is the killing American citizens thing.

      Our government has killed millions of civilians from other countries over the years and nobody minded– because we were at war with those countries. It was understood that in times of war, due process does not necessarily apply, even to our own citizens (say, the Civil War). Now, we can be all high-minded and deplore every death caused by our firebombs or napalm, but to kill civilians in a country that we are not at war with is a different animal altogether. By claiming that individual terrorists are sovereign and we are at war with al-Qaeda, we’re setting the precedent that we could take out anyone in the world that we don’t like simply by declaring war on that person.

      I can’t imagine that kind of policy will end well.

      And while the safety of the individuals operating those drones from Arizona is a plus, I fear that the distance and the relative safety of drone warfare will lead us to be even more quick to bomb than we already are. Chuck Hagel testified about how, with every vote, he asked himself whether such a policy was worthy of the people we are sending into danger, of the lives that will surely be lost. When that’s not a deterrent against warfare anymore, what will stop us?

    • Harry Kuheim Chadlio T. McCool • 32 minutes ago

      I agree…did you think the same thing when Bush was doing his best to pursue Terrorists though?

  • StephenM123 • 5 hours ago

    America is potentially seeding future wars in two different ways. The first involves the anger that this form of warfare sparks in people subjected to it.

    The second, and arguably the most pernicious, is the triumphalism this engenders in America: it’s seen as precise, surgical, unanswerable (how do ‘tribesmen’ defend against drones?), and a product of American technological superiority. And thus, Americans will expand the use of drones into different context, and eventually it’ll come back and hit you folks in the face – just as, say, the technological triumphalism of the Gulf War helped make the fiasco of the Iraq invasion possible.

    And yeah, Ta-Nehisi Coates is right: generally, American understanding of what’s going on on the ground in these cases will be lousy… because there are lots of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen and wherever – America’s ‘allies’ in those areas – who have an interest in making sure that America stays ignorant. This is one of the oldest tricks that African elites played on their new colonial masters: information warfare, bending European perceptions of local situations to their own ends. And there is _no way_ that America is not being played that way now. That’s one of the challenges of remote-controlled war.

  • feisto • 6 hours ago

    I’d be curious if you could expand on this sentence: “I suspect we’re seeding future wars.” That is, are you suggesting the use of drones, generally speaking, can seed future wars in a way that the violence brought about by conventional warfare can’t? Or is it the lack of transparency and accountability of the drone program that you think may seed future wars? I agree with the latter sentiment, but as far as drones themselves go, I’m not convinced that they somehow have a different psychological effect on civilian victims than conventional warfare does. Dresden and Tokyo suffered far worse during WW II, and yet Japan and Germany didn’t go on to start new wars after they surrendered. Again, I completely agree with you about the dangers of the moral vacuum the current drone program is creating; I just don’t see drones as fundamentally different from other types of warfare.

    • ResiliencyIsKey feisto • 5 hours ago

      The problem with the drone war is that it’s not really solving any problems — we may have eliminated a good portion of Al-Qaeda leadership, but we are not close to eliminating the movement. It also doesn’t solve the root problems of this issue – why people are drawn into these groups to begin with.

      I think the worry over “seeding future wars” or creating future terrorism is valid if you agree that these strikes aren’t solving the root problems, as well as the possibility that the collateral damage we’re inflicting on noncombatants could come back to bite us in the form of future recruits for the non-state actors (Taliban, Al-Qaeda).

      Comparing this conflict with WWII isn’t helpful; that conflict was between nation states with clearly defined territories, while this is a conflict involving non-state actors who are without a well-defined territory, much less a nation state.

      • Chadlio T. McCool ResiliencyIsKey • 5 hours ago

        I’d pushback against the idea that eliminating Al-Qaida’s leadership isn’t eliminating Al-Qaida’s “movement”. Terrorism will be with us, always, but Al-Qaida in particular didn’t spring forth out of thin air. It had very effective leadership who were good at what they did and removing that leadership has limited Al-Qaida’s abililty. Another generation of very good leaders potentially emerging is a distinct possibility but capturing or removing the ones that were there I think is a worthwhile pursuit that we’ve engaged in inefficiently.

        • ResiliencyIsKey Chadlio T. McCool • 5 hours ago

          But the problem isn’t merely Al-Qaeda but the forces in Muslim society that make it attractive to Muslims. If those problems aren’t fixed then terrorism is going to remain a problem. (This is a problem that goes beyond the Middle East into any society that severely lacks economic opportunity.) And yes, you acknowledge this, but my point is that Al-Qaeda is a side effect of a larger problem – the super empowerment of non-state actors in a world that has yet to adapt to them.

      • Lorehead ResiliencyIsKey • 4 hours ago

        A lot depends on whether al-Qaeda¹s been so inept over the last ten years because we’ve done such a good job of fighting it, or whether al-Qaeda got lucky once and we’ve been puffing them up ever since.

      • feisto ResiliencyIsKey • 5 hours ago

        But isn’t one problem that without the transparency, it’s difficult to even say whether or not the drone war is working or not? For example, is your assessment based on actual intelligence data or conjecture? (I’m honestly curious; I just haven’t seen any convincing evidence that says either way.)

        And I wasn’t comparing drone warfare itself to war between nation states so much as the psychological toll of drones versus more conventional methods of warfare. So, for example, does the use of drones create an environment where people are more likely to join non-state actors than when Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 through more conventional warfare? Why or why not?

        • ResiliencyIsKey feisto • 4 hours ago

          I know the drone war isn’t working because it’s too limited in its nature — it’s not fixing the problems that make terrorism and religious extremism attractive to poor or oppressed peoples the world over. It’s side effect of a larger problem, one that we directly address and fix, or, alternatively, we will learn to adapt to and live with (non-state violence).

          Regarding your question about the effects of conventional war vs. drone strikes, I have to say that counter insurgency is preferable if we are considering the effects on these populations, but it’s also time consuming, costly and in Afghanistan’s case, probably futile (Pakistan is the problem). Drone strikes are sort of like the first world version of the car bomb.

          • ResiliencyIsKey ResiliencyIsKey • 4 hours ago

            The ideas I’m espousing here are not mine originally but come from two interesting thinkers: Thomas P.M. Barnett (very much believes in fixing the “roots” of terrorism) and John Robb, who believes Barnett’s solutions are too costly and, anyway, are probably impossible. He is for adapting to this new environment . I side more with Robb on this, but the solution may end up being a synthesis of the two.

            Thomas P.M. Barnett: http://thomaspmbarnett.com/

            John Robb: http://globalguerrillas.typepa… (Do check out the books listed on Robb’s blog, especially Creveld’s opus The Rise and Decline of the State)

    • Bill Harshaw feisto • 5 hours ago

      I often think the psychological is more important than the real. For example, if you have a drone circulating overhead for a week, a month, maybe that’s more terrorizing than a strike which kills a “bad guy” (in our eyes). Maybe that generates more hatred of the U.S. than if the special forces did a raid.

  • CitizenE • 6 hours ago

    Perhaps it is my sense of hopelessness about this, or my sense of history, informed by art and literature, but somehow I feel this issue like so many is an ancient one, in which we play our parts, pro and con, lurch forward and fall back, mostly missing the big picture.

    Every new technological upgrade assuring military victory is a double edged sword; Hiroshima is turned to dust and for the rest of human history, humanity will be plagued with paranoia. The drone, remote control video game war, can one day appear over Kansas; or as we did from the Reagan era on we can throw our valuable treasury away, all the good it could do for humanity, on ridiculous Star Wars Defense Systems.

    Somewhere, we made a wrong turn, then another, then another. I listen to Brennan speak, and he seems like a reasonable and circumspect enough man in a position of such power; I watch the President, and he too does not seem like someone who takes lightly the death of innocent children. I hear in both their commentaries and the acts themselves a desire to protect those I too love and want free from harm’s way.

    When I was a young man, perhaps for the briefest window in human history, there was a vision of a world in which such weaponry would be obsolete, and this yet against a century in which warfare as it never had before included the “collateral damage” (an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one) of mass civilian death, the death of innocents. I am grateful that in our society we can argue such policies, though argument only goes so far. I want that argument to stay alive; I want our leaders to be forced to confront themselves, as the power they wield is as large as the force of nature, and should be given that respect.

    • isaacplautus CitizenE • an hour ago

      “I am grateful that in our society we can argue such policies”

      Me too. I’ve been watching a documentary on the fall of the Spanish Republic and Franco’s rise to power. It’s truly frightening how easily a country can fall into totalitarianism.

  • TenarDarell • 6 hours ago

    I find this statement you’ve highlighted incredibly disturbing.

    “…to say as Brennan speaking for the Obama administration did, ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.’”

    How could he even say that? Can he truly believe that? What does it accomplish to enter that into the record? This is a smart man, is there any purpose to this lie, except to lie to ourselves?

  • Shane • 5 hours ago

    I think it’s important to distinguish between non-drone strikes and drone strikes. The village in Yemen taken out by Tomahawks was taken out by a weapon much larger (and launched from much farther away in time and space, and thus less accurate for both identification and discrimination of targets) than the missiles mounted on drones. So much of the discussion around this topic confuses all strikes with the type of precision strikes that the drone programs engage in.

    So while it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Administration is right about how many civilian deaths have been caused by the drone program, this distinction is important for the discussion of whether the shift to drones from things like cruise missiles is a positive development for how we wage war.

    • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Shane • 5 hours ago

      I take that point, but if you read Filkins post–and the New America study–it directly contradicts Brennan’s statement. Filkins led with the tomahawk strike because he’d directly talked to those people. But his point, and his evidence, don’t end there.

      And to be clear my point isn’t that drones cause more civilian death. I highly doubt they do. My point is if “less civilian deaths” was the standard, we wouldn’t see it’s defenders claiming “no civilian deaths.”

      • Cranberi Ta-Nehisi Coates • 2 hours ago

        Didn’t see this thread before I commented, pointing out that the destruction described in your post was not from drones. I think that it is extremely important to recognize that the use of drones is a more “surgical” tool than other weapons. If you don’t believe in war, then argue to stop the war; don’t quibble with how it’s being waged, especially since drone warfare spares many more civilian lives than occupations (see Iraq or Afghanistan).

        The only way to stop the war is by demanding that Congress repeal the AUMF, not by insisting that Obama stop fighting a war that he (as the Executive) has been given by Congress to prosecute.

        • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Cranberi • 2 hours ago

          The only way to stop the war is by demanding that Congress repeal the AUMF, not by insisting that Obama stop fighting a war that he (as the Executive) has been given by Congress to prosecute.

          If you can point to someone here saying Obama shouldn’t be making warring Al Qaeda, I’d love to see it. I can only defend what I’ve actually said.

          More to the point the notion that a war can only be fought one way, and Obama is hamstrung, is manifestly false. Bush and Obama don’t fight the War on Terror in the same way. I think that’s a good thing. I also think it could be an even better thing.

          • Cranberi Ta-Nehisi Coates • 2 hours ago

            Sorry to have misunderstood. I guess I still don’t understand though, because I’m not sure what you believe the alternative to drone warfare should be if you (like I do) believe that we should be fighting al Qaeda.

            • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Cranberi • an hour ago

              I think the objection here is pretty clear:

              In some ways, I think the white paper obscures the issue. I certainly am concerned with the when and why of killing treachorous American citizens. But much more haunting to me is what Filkins highlights here–the lobbing of missiles into the homes of people, and compounding it by claiming to have done no such thing.Again it one thing to say, “We understand that there will be innocent children who will die because of this kind of warfare, but we must employ all available means to secure American lives and interests.” And all another to say as Brennan speaking for the Obama administration did, “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” In fact, there have been many “collateral deaths,” but they are of the sort that most Americans will never see and,most of us suspect, don’t much care about.

              But if that’s really true, then there is no need to dissemble. There’s no need for words like “imminent” when you really mean “when I feel like it” or claiming that you’re acting with a country’s permission when you’re pledged to acting regardless. Americans need not feel ashamed for doing what states always do–act in their best interests. I think it’s highly debatable whether drones are in our best interests. In fact I suspect we’re seeding future wars.

              But our real problem is that we somehow think we’re above our own interests, that our virtue is divine. Our problem is we think we’re better than we actually are. We’ve gotten so good at telling ourselves this.

              But to restate, my point isn’t “Stop all drones.” My point is stop dissembling about drones, and let us assess the facts as they are. Instead of saying there are not innocents being killed, let us grant that, in fact, we are killing innocent people. And then let’s ask “To what end?”

              I can appreciate that Al Qaeda is an organization that has sworn the destruction of America. Are we now saying that whenever any such organization should be subject to bombings? What precisely is our policy in this age?

              My personal idea is that freedom costs, and the ideals that America claims to be wedded to mean that people die. And some of those people aren’t soldiers. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the only ideal that matters is the immediate safety of this country’s citizens, and anything done in pursuit of that safety is right. But we can’t even begin to have a debate about that, because we can’t agree on the meaning of words like “imminent.”

            • Lorehead Cranberi • 2 hours ago

              A lot of what we’re arguing over is not whether we should be bombing targets in Yemen or Pakistan at all, although some people here probably do want to put a stop to that entirely. If we do, we should use drones.

              It’s how careful the U.S. should be before it pulls the trigger, what due process a President needs to follow to order an assassination, and how much ability the President should have to cover up his own mistakes.

              • Cranberi Lorehead • an hour ago

                Well, if that’s what we’re arguing about, I’ll return to my belief that drones are probably the best thing that we can do under the circumstances. In a war, the “enemy” isn’t named by the standards of criminal due process. It’s up to the Congress to describe the enemy (which it did in the AUMF), then up to the President to identify the enemy as described. Once that happens, drone technology allows a higher degree of “care” than other technologies in targeting the enemy.

                Sure, if we want to say that Congress described the enemy too broadly, or that the President isn’t correctly identifying the enemy (something that Congress could certainly notice), we should discuss that. I don’t see that discussion happening here. In fact, it’s very few discussions that even mention Congress, or any responsibility that Congress might have.

    • rick jones Shane • 2 hours ago

      Going through the Filkins post, I don’t get a sense that he was confusing missiles fired from drones upon command, and cruise missiles, just that he was using the cruise missile incident as an example of the seeming incompleteness of the intelligence. He might have made that more explicit I suppose to forestall confusion and/or the telephone game. What I found most interesting was his assertion that the intelligence missed that there were women and children in the area: “But, in retrospect, we know that the cameras missed the women and children.” While he doesn’t say so explicitly, from that I infer he would seek a “zero tolerance” on remote strikes – there being zero chance of killing anyone but the bad people.

      Certainly a Tomahawk takes some length of time to get from its launch point to its target, but unless the intelligence gathered on the training site was cursory at best, it seems implausible that such things could be missed, or that women and children could have arrived while the Tomahawks were in flight.

    • StephenM123 Shane • 5 hours ago

      Just to note as well, those Tomahawks apparently dispensed cluster munitions, so there’s a continuing danger in the area as well.

  • PrestonWheatley • 2 hours ago

    Wait, so is the complaint that somebody lied about casualties? Accountability is what free speech and a free press are for. Let’s not be naive and expect our leaders to present themselves in a negative light.

    I feel like I’m becoming a broken record on this blog for how often I point out the utterly un-remarkable nature of Obama’s foreign policy. It is important to understand that drones are a tool, not a policy. They are one *part* of American foreign policy which includes when we use what tools.

    American foreign policy has pursued the same ideology and in the same spirit roughly since the end of WWII. Every president has done so. As per the Constitution, American presidents are arbiters of foreign policy without any checks or balances. This is not presidential over-reach, this is the Constitution giving them the broadest of authority (with the exception to declare war, and as we know from experience, war declarations are a semantic formality under international treaties, not a practical aspect of effecting violence outside of the State borders).

    So let’s be clear:

    1. There was *zero* reason to think that Barack Obama would behave differently than the previous 11 presidents all of whom came from different backgrounds and held a wide swath of ideologies.

    2. “Drone policy” is in fact “American foreign policy”. It is important to address it as such.

    3. The problem is not our Commanders in Chief. The problem is the American population that elects them. There are a few important aspects of our society and how we elect leaders that pursue these policies.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans demand their policy makers be “tough.” We see it every election when millions of Americans demand a candidate promise a new war with a new country. We see it when – as an overwhelming majority – we demand leaders are “tough on crime.” We see it in our drug policies and a willingness to imprison an outrageous percentage of the population rather than consider another solution. We see it in our immigration policies (“amnesty!”).

    As a population we regard our safety as sacrosanct. We are wholly unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things will happen to us. This is the demand of the populace, that the POTUS employ the CIA and military to track down every zealot peasant in every barren desert, every remote jungle, and kill them before they can kill us. Films generally leave the impression that technology makes this easy. In reality it is impossible. I do not use the word “impossible” as hyperbole. It is actually not possible to do this. But we demand results no less. What happens when “results” are demanded in an impossible task? Something tangible is found. It’s the same impetus behind teachers cheating to ensure their kids pass tests and their schools get funding.

    Foreign trade (an integral aspect of our economy) demands a peaceful globe. Our pocketbooks directly inspire Washington DC to police every nation that has significant American imports and exports. Partly because of wealthy donors and lobby groups, but also because foreign trade generates a shit ton of tax revenue, and lastly because it directly affects nearly every American and disrupting our cash flow would piss most of us off.

    If Obama had not been willing to deal with these realities he would not have been elected. Instead some other Democrat or Republican who *was* willing would be president and pursuing the exact same things. The problem is not any specific president, it is *us*. Americans as a people are war hawks.

    Drones are a new technology and one that changes the calculus involved in conflict. Every industrialized nation will have a drone program soon, and it will ultimately change how the Super Powers (mainly the ones who have permanent seats on the UN security council) effect hegemony in their various spheres of influence. However that is not the wonkery that anyone on this blog is talking about. What we are talking about here are the excesses and immoralities of American foreign policy as it has stood for nearly 80 years.

    Nothing is going to change until the American population does. Changing the minds of the American population is a very good idea, but we must first make sure that we understand the details of why we act the way we do. Foreign policy has an unbelievable amount of grey area. In my opinion it is the least black-and-white aspect of running a country. There are no simple solutions, and often there are no good ones either. Rather our leaders are forced to divine the least of evils in pursuing an impossible task for a demanding population with a clock running down and no clear information to go on. These are not stupid or irrational people, and the vast majority of foreign policy advisers are not simple ideologues. That they would behave this way should give us pause to consider why. None of which can excuse blowing up children in Yemen. In fact, blowing up children in Yemen is f***ed up repugnant. So (and this is not a rhetorical question) what should we do about it?

    • trixied13 PrestonWheatley • an hour ago

      The juxtaposition of your comment with the one that follows (or precedes) depending on your view of the thread) is remarkable.

    • MondiC PrestonWheatley • 44 minutes ago

      Good effective post that distils the complex issues involved pretty well. That said I think you blur the lines between the previous 11 Presidents a bit too much. Certainly they all took steps to maintain American hegemony over much of the world, but there were important differences to their approach that may not always stand out to those of us with serious humanitarian concerns about the whole enterprise.

      “Every industrialized nation will have a drone program soon, and it will ultimately change how the Super Powers (mainly the ones who have permanent seats on the UN security council) effect hegemony in their various spheres of influence.”

      My understanding is that every other half-way competent miltiary already operates UAV’s of some kind (mostly for reconnaissance).

  • Derrick Martin • 7 hours ago

    “But our real problem is that we somehow think we’re above our own interests, that our virtue is divine. Our problem is we think we’re better than we actually are. We’ve gotten so good at telling ourselves this.”

    This.

    I struggle internally about the drone strikes but not because I think that we’re better than that. I struggle with the oversight aspect of one person or a small group of people in a government’s name can determine who lives or dies in secret. I actually believe that drone strikes and what they actually accomplish in relation to the destruction of innocent lives and infrastructure is more moral than invading a country and killing tens of thousands of civilians in a “legal war”.

    I think we won’t know for decades if these actions come back to haunt us in a significant way. I think technology is the great variable being that in past wars, there was very limited ways to exact revenge against a state whereas technology has gotten to the point where one person or a very small group of people can inflict tremendous damage on a state. I personally think that this would occur whether drone strikes were happening or not because the capability is there and only expanding.

    • BetweenTwoWorlds Derrick Martin • 6 hours ago

      “I actually believe that drone strikes and what they actually accomplish
      in relation to the destruction of innocent lives and infrastructure is
      more moral than invading a country and killing tens of thousands of
      civilians in a ‘legal war’.”

      I can’t make heads or tails of this. Bystanders are being killed and the response has been to deny this is happening. We don’t admit it to ourselves. I have to ask why we don’t, and my first theory is that we know it IS immoral and wrong, and we don’t want to think we’re doing something wrong or immoral, so we say we’re not doing it.

      This is a separate issue, as the OP noted, from killing people at the say-so of the President.

      • Derrick Martin BetweenTwoWorlds • 6 hours ago

        I’m not denying it’s happening. My point is that in the greater context of wars- even if you just put the 20th century wars into context- as far as loss of innocent life goes in relation to the intended targets, this form of attack is much more efficient. Me saying that doesn’t take away from the tragedy of any of the innocent lives lost but how can one ignore the fact that there’s a lot less people dying in trying to get the people who are intended?

        • BetweenTwoWorlds Derrick Martin • 5 hours ago

          We’re probably in violent agreement on our own points, but we’re not making the same argument. I believe (and please correct me if I misunderstand) that your argument is “this is safer for American soldiers and more efficient.” My argument is “we should admit we are doing this–killing the innocent as well–and admit that we believe killing innocent people is wrong but we’re doing it for a higher purpose, the protection of America and Americans.”

          As an American I own the image of America and get to set its value. I do this in concert with 300MM+ others, but I think I deserve–am owed, even–the right to be informed of what is being done in my name and what is being justified and with what reason. We may have to come down to the realization that frankly we are doing immoral things because some higher purpose supersedes innocence and guilt.

          Talk to me as if I were an adult, and let me make my own moral calculus. Don’t lie and say we’re not killing innocents, and don’t tell me that what we are doing has the imprimatur of justice.

          • Derrick Martin BetweenTwoWorlds • 5 hours ago

            I totally agree with what your argument. Totally.

            My argument actually is that it’s safer not just for American soldiers but also for the civilians of that country. Look no further than Iraq who had, by some estimates, more than 100,000 civilians die during the invasion and the occupation. By my cold calculus, no president will get elected in this country that won’t “keep America safe” through controversial means. When it comes down to it, they’re going to err on the side of doing something. I think in the short-term drones are the least destructive option if the president has to “do something”. The long-term effects have yet to be determined because of aforementioned factors.

    • exitr Derrick Martin • 6 hours ago

      I actually believe that drone strikes and what they actually accomplish in relation to the destruction of innocent lives and infrastructure is more moral than invading a country and killing tens of thousands of civilians in a “legal war”.

      It may well be, but that’s a bogus alternative; there’s no way the U.S. would launch an Iraq- or Afghanistan-style invasion in Yemen or NW Pakistan, for example. The whole premise of drone warfare is that it’s a tool to accomplish highly specific objectives, often in nations who are at least nominally our allies.

      • Derrick Martin exitr • 6 hours ago

        I think that it’s presumptive to think that we wouldn’t launch a war in Yemen or NW Pakistan if say, John McCain were president. Iraq had no role in us being attacked on 9/11 and were invaded, so in reality, we’d actually have a “reason” to invade Yemen or NW Pakistan being that’s were they actually have terrorists plotting.

        • exitr Derrick Martin • 5 hours ago

          Perhaps, but a not-inconsiderable part of John McCain’s not being president is the public’s lack of stomach for another such invasion. The mood of the country is not, to put it mildly, what it was in the 18 months post-9/11.

          I think drones are a thoroughly post-Iraq weapon: a way to maintain at least the appearance of action at very little financial and zero cost in American lives.

          • theartistformerlyknownashandle exitr • 2 hours ago

            Ok, so let’s take this hypothetical a bit further, Mccain is President, the public has no stomach for war, or becoming victims of terrorists, and just for fun, let’s say there are no military drones or missiles at his disposal. Wouldn’t he order conventional air strikes (causing even more “collateral damage”) instead? Is it really that different to be in a cockpit in the air than a control room on the ground when you use deadly force, other than the knowledge you could vulnerable to attack yourself? Aren’t our military pilots rigorously trained to remain dispassionate regarding their targets and their own vulnerability anyway? And what about the blowback any president would receive especially that commie Obama (/snarkasm), if he missed an opportunity to thwart another attack on our soil, launched from another country?

        • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Derrick Martin • 6 hours ago

          I think this is a very good point.

      • Yi Li exitr • 2 hours ago

        Exactly. Using drones in war zones decreases the loss of life– and despite the difficulties with oversight, I think it’s very arguable that drones are actually a more ethical response than conventional warfare in those situations. But drones make it too easy for us to go to war, so we end up bombing people we otherwise wouldn’t dare.

        One day, that’s going to come back to bite us– drones are not hard to make and with every person we kill, there are a few more people in the world who hate us for very real, very justified reasons. I hope John Brennan realizes that.

      • Chadlio T. McCool exitr • 6 hours ago

        They wouldn’t launch a full-scale land invasion but there would be Army Rangers inserted a la Somalia

    • MondiC Derrick Martin • an hour ago

      Drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan actually do involve a surprising number of JSOC/other boots on the ground to gather intelligence among other things. Now obviously thats not an occupation, but its wrong to suggest that no soldiers are in danger.

  • isaacplautus • 2 hours ago

    “But our real problem is that we somehow think we’re above our own
    interests, that our virtue is divine. Our problem is we think we’re
    better than we actually are.”

    This touches on a fundamental problem of the fusion of church and state. Ideally, our religious institutions would check the idea of American Exceptionalism by reminding Americans that all nations are comprised of sinners, and that America is no different. But when the church and state are fused together, “God Bless America” too often turns into “God Bless America Who Can Do No Wrong.”

  • Jim Matthews • 5 hours ago

    The entire “War on Terrorism” is fraught with strategic and ethical problems. For many decades we had very formalized arguments about the proper conduct in war. All of these arguments were based on a state/army versus state/army model. Terrorism is a completely different model and many of the old “rules” don’t apply. Instead of thinking all the issues through and coming up with new arguments that attempt, as best as possible, to incorporate a broad based ethical theory to guide policies, we have done the exact opposite-acted in whatever way we wanted and then, when the ethical problems arise from our actions, either start to backtrack away and revise our actions or try and construct arguments to fit the situations. All the while trying to make certain that many actions are not discovered so questions cannot be raised thus avoiding having to perform any serious ethical evaluation.

    At best our drone policies are justified on a consequentialist “The ends justifies the means” basis. I don’t think it takes too much effort to point out that this approach is highly questionable because the short-term consequences (killing a few terrorists) do not outweigh the long-term consequences (alienating large groups of people in a region we need all the allies we can get and further inflaming hostilities towards the U.S. entailing further military involvement on our part). The cynic in me thinks they know exactly what the long-term consequences are and continued engagement in the region is one of the ultimate goals. However, another part of me thinks they were completely unprepared to deal with this new model of conflict, overreacted and came up with the simplest, basest theories they could, ethics be damned. Regardless of the original intentions, there certainly is enough information available to come up with a fairly comprehensive approach to terrorism that incorporates the values we’ve at least given lip service to for centuries.

    • jay_see_are Jim Matthews • 5 hours ago

      Fundamentally, it seems the issue that people have with drone strikes is the asymmetry of power and the lack of risk involved for the attacker. Coates mentioned sometime back that drone strikes blur the line between war casualties and assassinations and I definitely agree. In some sense, this is good, because it has brought a lot more people to thinking about the consequences of war casualties, even if only in the context of drone strikes.

      • Lorehead jay_see_are • 4 hours ago

        You had a very similar discussion about submarines, a century ago. They were against the laws of warfare. They didn’t stop civilian ships and give them a chance to explain themselves, or to surrender. From hiding, they torpedoed ships carrying women and children!

        None of which, of course, stopped the Allies from building them for the next war.

        The fact that these attacks use drones and drones are new weapons gets more attention than it deserves..

        • marathag Lorehead • 3 hours ago

          The Modern Submarine was invented by John Holland, an Irish Fenian, as a way to strike at Great Britain in 1878 with his first prototype, first of many he would do over the years

          He privately developed it over time, getting a Patent in 1892,to forming a company with other investors in 1893, the “John P. Holland Torpedo Boat Company” and gaining more investors in 1899 as part of the new “Electric Boat Company” where he finally sold a model to the US Navy in 1900, the Holland VI, soon to be followed by seven more boats.

          But Electric Boat Company also licensed the right to build Subs based off Holland’s Patents to other foreign Powers, the British, Russians and more.

          • Lorehead marathag • 3 hours ago

            I’m referring mainly to the criticism of the U-boat campaign in the Great War.

            • marathag Lorehead • 2 hours ago

              Submarines were known and possessed to all the major parties in WWI, but just the Germans made a point of using them in an unrestricted manner.

              Like the USN did against Japan in WWII

              • Lorehead marathag • 2 hours ago

                I agree. Likewise, many of the countries who object to how we’re using drones are themselves building drones, and the opponents of Obama’s bombing campaign, which has replaced cruise missiles and manned aircraft with drones, do not want to ban all uses of drones.

        • ResiliencyIsKey Lorehead • 3 hours ago

          I think the difference is that these earlier wars were between nation states, whereas we’re making undeclared war against non-state actors and in the process causing the deaths of many noncombatants (who may not even be allied with the terrorists).

          The second major difference is that these nation states adapted to the problem of submarine warfare which made the users of it risk their lives on the battlefield, whereas drone pilots don’t risk anything. This practically begs the targets of drones to reciprocate with terrorism.

          • Chadlio T. McCool ResiliencyIsKey • 3 hours ago

            but terrorism didn’t rise as a rebuttal to drone strikes, drone strikes rose in response to terrorism. It’s how we adapted to terrorism. I don’t think it’s an effective tool but with oversight I think it is morally consistent with our values to target non-state actors with a weapon that doesn’t put soldiers at risk if innocent casualties can be limited. Al-Qaida doesn’t expose itself when it plants roadside munitions or place bombs onto subways.

      • Jim Matthews jay_see_are • 4 hours ago

        Just about any war we fight is asymmetrical with regard to power. With regard to risk, I don’t think there is a moral argument that an action in war is not justified if the risk you take is not on par with your enemy’s. I didn’t hear any outcry when we were launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan or Iraq. That wasn’t very risky on our part.

        Maybe drone strikes blur the line between assassinations and war casualties. Unfortunately, that is one of the consequences of the new warfare model and terrorism. From a moral standpoint, I’d rather have the blood of a few dozen innocents on my hands from drone strikes than of tens and hundreds of thousands from “conventional war”. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the current drone policy, but if we are thinking and talking about the consequences of war casualties, it seems that drone strikes are preferable to the more conventional wars we just undertook in Afghanistan and Iraq with regard to casualties.

        For me, the issue should be why and when to use drone strikes. There needs to be a codified policy detailing these issues so when a drone strike occurs, it can be held up against the standards to see if the conditions were met. If so, move on. If not, there needs to be severe consequences for whomever authorized the attack. I am more worried about the long-term consequences of drone strikes (instigation of hatred that will ultimately lead to more conflict, more injuries, more deaths) than I am of blurring the line between assassination and war casualties. Once the enemy became a small cadre of loosely associated individuals that are not sponsored directly by a state, that line ceased to exist. Not because of what we have done, but because of the shift in nature and tactics of the enemy. Our responsibility is how best to deal with the changing model that is effective and tied to specific principles and values. So far, we’ve failed doing this.

        • StephenM123 Jim Matthews • 3 hours ago

          “From a moral standpoint, I’d rather have the blood of a few dozen innocents on my hands from drone strikes than of tens and hundreds of thousands from “conventional war”.”

          Of course, using this and other criteria, drone strikes are cheap and easy, and far more likely to be used routinely than would be resort to conventional warfare. And because they can be undertaken covertly, they can be more easily divorced from ‘normal’ American values. Here the analogy is not so much with warfare, but with America’s use of torture.

          • Jim Matthews StephenM123 • 3 hours ago

            Which is why there needs to be a strict code of when, how and why to use drones. Using them should be the exception not the rule. That they are effective and can minimize innocent casualties should only be part of the calculus when determining a comprehensive policy on drone use.

  • Chadlio T. McCool • 5 hours ago

    This is part of my frustration. Al-Qaida exists. It’s not as if we’re launching strikes against random brown people although I understand it’s a popular conceit. I think it’s wiser to argue if the military is the best tool to use against Al-Qaida or if we’d be better served with letting Yemen and Pakistan handle Al-Qaida on their own but to argue that there isn’t a problem with terrorism in the Middle East that someone would have to address isn’t taking the entire situation into consideration.

  • Ro • 6 hours ago

    The intransigence of US foreign police in regards to terrorism isn’t solution oriented, but rather just repeated shows of force presumably show that they are ‘serious’ about the issue. On a smaller, non-lethal scale I would compare it NYC’s policy of stop and frisk. It’s easy to track and display activity as an easily presentable and, more importantly, digestible talking point to the somewhat concerned masses. However, as we’ve seen in both cases, constant motion does not equate to effectiveness.

    I think the government know that most people only give cursory glances to issues that do not affect their immediate lives. As long as they can claim something is being done, they can satiate those glances quite easily, even if the consequence is sustained unnecessary violence sustained by money from their own pocket.

    Sure we’re all appalled or whatever that the drone strikes kill civilians, but not appalled enough that it holds our collective attention in such a manner that would hold people accountable for expensive, non-effective, and inhumane policy. Americans, on average, just don’t care. As long as we are doing something, anything against this amorphous philosophical blob of terrorism, we just contently turn the channel.

    • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • 5 hours ago

      Given how many of Al-Qaida’s leadership we’ve killed I’d say that Obama’s use of drones isn’t a mere showpiece. I think you can argue against an end goal while still acknowledging that one exists.

      • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 5 hours ago

        So the murder of civilians is justified by the killing of certain high value targets? What end goal does that serve, other than perpetuating what we call terrorism?

        There is definitely an end goal in play, but it can be easily argued that ending terrorism is not in that scope. Between the enormous cost of maintaing such a program, and the almost indiscriminate collateral damage it leaves in it’s wake, can you seriously say the program is effective in diminishing the threat of danger worldwide?

        • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • 5 hours ago

          In certain contexts, yes. The end goal in my view is the elimination of Al-Qaida’s ability to serve as an effective worldwide terrorist organization. Eliminating terrorism is as unlikely as eliminating demagoguery. I think we could have eliminated Al-Qaida using the FBI and Interpol but even then there would have been innocent people who would have died but to say that the world isn’t a safer place without Al-Qaida’s leadership in place is a mistake.

          • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 5 hours ago

            Idealistically perhaps, but there are other options that are preferable to the wanton killing of innocent people. The constant antagonization of a country’s population is simply not a great way of accomplishing the stated goal, if that is the goal at all. And let’s not even get into the cost, which is crippling the country.

            And the world is not a safer place when you kill more innocent people than the alleged perpetrators. That’s like saying in certain contexts, it’s ok to kill 10 people to kill one criminal. By what metric does that even remotely resemble an effective strategy? Collateral damage is an expected outcome when it comes to military action, but the damage, cost and loss of life vs. the outcome does in no way justify what is happening.

            If this what you would call ‘in our best interests’ then what are our interests? If that is to end the effectiveness of Al-Qaida, there are just more effective ways of accomplishing that than missile strikes against villages.

            • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • 4 hours ago

              We’re not wantonly killing innocent people. This isn’t Vietnam. What proof do you have that we’re killing more innocents than intended targets? This is one action among hundreds I don’t it’s wise to extrapolate from this and argue that this is how the entire campaign is being waged. If you had proof that Obama’s use of drones has a ten to one innocents versus terrorists outcome then you’d have a very strong argument.

              • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 4 hours ago

                While there is no way to accurately estimate the number of actual civilian casualties, it is understood that the administration is grossly under-reporting those numbers.

                I will willingly admit these are not air tight, but there is enough data to give credibility to the idea there is being far more harm than good being committed, which is inline with the general methodology of US foreign policy when it comes to dealing with terrorism in that region of the world.

                Evidence that the narrative being offered is false if fairly easy to find.
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…
                http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/…
                http://www.policymic.com/artic…
                http://articles.latimes.com/20…

                • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • 3 hours ago

                  I’ve admitted upthread that the narrative being offered is false. That doesn’t lead to the conclusion that we’re killing ten innocent people for every terrorist we’re targeting. Nothing I’ve seen reported from Ackerman to Ricks leads me to the conclusion that drones are a more dangerous tool in killing people then boots on the ground or long range missiles. The general methodology we’ve used in that region has been tanks, missiles and infantry and this shift in tactics are what we’re debating.

                  • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 3 hours ago

                    You’re debating a shift in tactics. I’m saying the results, no matter what methodology you care to focus on, is the same. The negative far out weighs the positive, which does not help to diminish the threat of terrorism worldwide.

                    If you choose to ignore one side of the debate for whatever reason, that is your choice. However, the evidence is there that drones are a continuation of ultra-violent and ineffective US policy in that region. And that fits the sum total outcome of our efforts in that part of the world.

                    • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • 2 hours ago

                      What side am I ignoring? You stated that we’re killing 10 people for everyone one person we’re actually targeting. I don’t believe that to be true. If you’re arguing we shouldn’t be engaging in a “War on Terror” I agree but no the results of a drone strike and a cruise missile aren’t the same and neither of those equal the result of a land war. That’s simply not true.

                      • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 2 hours ago

                        Again, you are arguing tactics. I’m not entertaining the idea of what is less destructive is therefore equitable. And at no point did I attempt to quantify which military tactic was better. That is an idea you introduced.

                        For the second time, what I am saying is that using drones is a continuation of our ineffective policy in that region. If you want to diminish the threat of terror, killing civilians disproportionally in relation to actual terrorists is not the way to do it. And we know this because our policy has always had mass collateral damage, but the threat of retaliation still exists.

                        As I said earlier, it is your right to believe what ever you want. There is evidence enough to credibly entertain the idea that we are killing more innocent people than said targets. If you want to ignore that, that is your decision. It does not change the fact that, once again, innocent people are bearing the brunt of the ‘War on Terror’. Whether they are getting killed by cruise missiles, embedded infantry or drones, is irrelevant. The point is that it should not be happening.

                        • Chadlio T. McCool Ro • an hour ago

                          “The intransigence of US foreign police in regards to terrorism isn’t solution oriented, but rather just repeated shows of force presumably show that they are ‘serious’ about the issue.” was the original statement with which I disagreed. Arguing there is a current end goal to the current campaign against Al-Qaida. “Idealistically perhaps, but there are other options that are preferable to the wanton killing of innocent people.” is the mischaracterization which launched us on our current path in which I am discussing how we’re not killing people without regard. Now I agree that the “War on Terror” is misguided but I don’t agree that it’s being done out habit or wantonly. Terrorists should be brought to justice but engaging in the region with aid, infrastructure building, and cultural exchange would mitigate the problem long-term.

                          • Ro Chadlio T. McCool • 40 minutes ago

                            Well, I don’t think anyone is saying that the persons responsible shouldn’t be brought to justice. What is being said is that there are better ways do it.

                            And the history of the civilian casualty rates in that region as a result of our direct action refutes the idea that our policy isn’t habitual and excessive. You name some of the methods that should be used to diminish terrorism worldwide, but that far too often takes a back seat to military action. If we were genuinely concerned about making the world safer, that would not be the case.

  • BetweenTwoWorlds • 6 hours ago

    “When Brennan claimed, as he did in 2011–clearly referring to the drone
    campaign–that ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral death,’ he was
    most certainly wrong.”

    I don’t get how we’re OK with this. We’re just raining down death indiscriminately. This is war against a populace.

    As long as the people being killed don’t have names and faces,I guess it’s nothing to get worried about.

    • Chadlio T. McCool BetweenTwoWorlds • 5 hours ago

      I think it’s hyperbole to say we’re “raining down death indiscriminately”.

      • BetweenTwoWorlds Chadlio T. McCool • 4 hours ago

        I don’t have another word for it. We’re firing off ballistics not knowing the effects, and it seems not much caring about the effects as long as it stays quiet.

        What is the better word or phrase? I’m not trying to be cute. I’m trying to find out what you’d call this type of warfare.

        What happens in war is not what happens in any other context. So this comparison isn’t perfect: If we had the police firing off weapons into buildings not really knowing who was there but doing so in the hope that the bad guys might get hit, we wouldn’t call it moral and we wouldn’t pretend that only bad guys were getting hit.

        I don’t know if there’s a better solution that kills fewer innocents. I’d like it to be forthrightly stated, however, that in the process of hunting down and killing the targets that we are indeed killing the innocent.

        • rick jones BetweenTwoWorlds • 3 hours ago

          What is the better word or phrase?

          “FIre and hope everyone forgets.”

        • Chadlio T. McCool BetweenTwoWorlds • 4 hours ago

          I think we’re acting with incomplete intelligence, where our results will be unsure. I think “raining down death indiscriminately” implies that we’re tossing out missiles without any intelligence or regard for the consequences. I’m not sure the administration obfuscating what it does from the public implies that it doesn’t care about the innocents that would require a level of inhumanity that I don’t have much evidence for. I’d say we’re launching strikes partially blind if I had to pin down a phrasing.

        • ResiliencyIsKey BetweenTwoWorlds • 3 hours ago

          I think “mowing the lawn” is the expression you’re looking for.

          EDIT: I’m not fond of the phrase or the type of foreign policy it espouses.

  • Cranberi • 2 hours ago

    One kind of important note to the Dexter Filkins story: the attack that he describes was not from drones. Arguably, a drone attack would NOT have resulted in the casualties that he describes, which were from a “volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles from a ship off the coast.”

    Drone technology has the purpose and effect of (relative to other weapons) sparing civilian lives. Clearly, drones aren’t perfect, but they save American lives, and minimize civilian casualties.

    At any time, Congress can withdraw the AUMF. I am not equipped with enough knowledge to say that Congress should do so right now, but until it does, we are fighting a war with Congressional approval, and the President has to use his best judgment.

  • Chadlio T. McCool • 3 hours ago

    I appreciate the tone of the discussion though, I know it’s not atypical of The Horde, but I think it should be expressed I often don’t wade into arguments over drones but this has been refreshing as all heck.

  • Albin • 4 hours ago

    Filkins’ article, which I just read, deals with the bloody aftermath of a Tomahawk missile strike, not a far more surgical drone attack. It’s very informative on the decision of the Yemen regime to contract out its war against domestic insurgents to the USA. So long as USA is operating under Yemeni regime cover and thinks this furthers its own “War on Terror” strategy, there is arguably an excuse. Even killing American citizens is excusable if the “War on Terror” is a bona fide legal war, as opposed to the famously violent but admittedly metaphorical “War on Drugs” that is also conducted in different poor countries, but not involving the drones or targeted CIA assassinations.

    More Americans have died from drug trade violence than terrorism, the enemy is more numerous and just as nasty, but we leave the military thing to Columbia, et al, and target US citizens for capture and Miranda rights rather than drone fire. I’m sure there are patriots reading here perfectly willing to assassinate drug lords with drones, but we know those are Constitutional ignoramuses. So how do we rationalize a legal basis for religious terrorists? We don’t. The crude “rationale” is only that, after 9/11, the purely political consequences of another Islamist terror attack, on any scale, are far worse than crossfire casualties from drug trade shootouts, or a fertilizer bombing by a pseudo-christian militia group.

    • Ta-Nehisi Coates Mod Albin • 4 hours ago

      Filkins’ article, which I just read, deals with the bloody aftermath of a Tomahawk missile strike, not a far more surgical drone attack

      No it’s about drones too. From the article:

      Indeed, if there is one overriding factor in America’s secret wars—especially in its drone campaign—it’s that the U.S. is operating in an information black hole. Our ignorance is not total, but our information is nowhere near adequate. When an employee of the C.I.A. fires a missile from an unmanned drone into a compound along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he almost certainly doesn’t know for sure whom he’s shooting at. Most drone strikes in Pakistan, as an American official explained to me during my visit there in 2011, are what are known as “signature strikes.” That is, the C.I.A. is shooting at a target that matches a pattern of behavior that they’ve deemed suspicious. Often, they get it right and they kill the bad guys. Sometimes, they get it wrong. When Brennan said, as he did in 2011—clearly referring to the drone campaign—that “there hasn’t been a single collateral death,” he was most certainly wrong.The same is true of opponents of the drone war, who sometimes lay claim to much more knowledge than they actually possess. And so, when a Pakistani newspaper reports that twenty civilians were killed in an attack, it is often taken as gospel truth, even though, as is often the case, the reporting is done over the telephone. For Americans—who are, after all, the ones whose country is firing the drones—it’s more or less impossible to independently verify many details of a drone strike. The reason is obvious: for a Western diplomat or reporter to go to the area where most of the drone strikes have taken place would be reckless in the extreme. (I’ve been to the tribal areas twice on my own. The first time, I was arrested and expelled by the Pakistani government; the second time, I was invited by a Taliban warlord who was killed six weeks later. Each trip took days of preparation and negotiation to arrange.)

      The best and most painstaking attempts to get at the truth of the drone war—like one by the New America foundation—acknowledge the difficulty of the enterprise. The New America study found that between 2004 and 2010, the U.S. carried out a hundred and fourteen strikes, which the study’s authors estimated killed between eight hundred and thirty and twelve hundred and ten people. Of those, the study found, between five hundred and fifty and eight hundred and fifty—roughly two-thirds—were probably militants. Included in the dead were many militant leaders. That means that roughly a third of the dead—several hundred—were probably civilians. That’s a lot of bodies. These may be the best estimates we have, but they are still approximations.

      Brennan is likely to face sharp questioning in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well he should. You will hear a lot of claims about militants killed and civilians killed and civilians spared. Most likely, neither side will be entitled to its shrillness. If the Al Majalah strike has any value now, it should be to remind us not just of our knowledge but also of our ignorance.

      • Bill Harshaw Ta-Nehisi Coates • 4 hours ago

        Hmm. I’ve only questions:
        I wonder what the ratio of “civilians” to “bad guys” is in police shootings?
        I wonder if there’s been a learning curve, has the percentage of civilians killed gone down and the percentage of bad guys gone up as we’ve become more experienced in their use?
        Is civilian death really the issue, or is the real issue how do you handle terrorist threats which aren’t tied to a national entity?

        Should Obama declare victory in the GWOT and America accept future casualties in terrorist attacks as part of living in the modern world?

    • StephenM123 Albin • 4 hours ago

      American drones are already being used for surveillance over Mexico, in the context of the ‘war on drugs’ there. The only difference from the ones operating in Yemen is that their wing pylons are (presumably) empty. But I can easily see a situation where the US government gives in to the temptation to begin drone attacks in Mexico, too.

      At this point, the weapons of choice in drone attacks are Hellfire missiles… but Hellfires and other such weapons leave bits with NSN identifiers scattered around after they explode. I would bet almost any amount of money that DARPA or the CIA has a priority program in place to develop more deniable drone weapons, ones that would be more difficult to distinguish from, say, a car bomb. If that happens, there’ll be drone attacks all over the place… like Mexico.

  • citizen citizen • 4 hours ago

    “but they are of the sort that most Americans will never see and, most of us suspect, don’t much care about.”

    I certainly agree with this, and what disturbs me about this is the same thing that has always disturbed me about “torture.” I recall Mike Isikoff pointing out that there is/was a sizable number of our countrymen who would like to see suspected militants tortured, and therefore it would be doubtful that anyone would be held accountable for it. What have we become?

  • exitr • 6 hours ago

    Americans need not feel ashamed for doing what states always do–act in their best interests. I think it’s highly debatable whether drones are in our best interests. In fact I suspect we’re seeding future wars.But our real problem is that we somehow think we’re above our own interests, that our virtue is divine. Our problem is we think we’re better than we actually are. We’ve gotten so good at telling ourselves this.

    Yes, this, exactly. It’s the disingenuousness of the policy, and the rhetoric surrounding it, that’s so damn frustrating. And this rhetoric is entirely aimed at the home front; no one in the Middle East takes seriously the idea that the U.S. is a disinterested actor. And a lot of people here don’t particularly begrudge us that, since they’re quite used to living in the margins between various national, imperial, and para-state structures that are all primarily concerned with their own interests. But I think the administration is to a large extent persuaded by its own rhetoric, and that’s a dangerous game:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02…

    • sansculottes exitr • 2 hours ago

      By the same token, there is no reason to expect anyone to approve of something simply because it’s in America’s interest. This country’s military hegemony is problematic enough when it is used in the defense of fundamental principles. Destroying villages full of civilians in the national interest is not something that nations ought to be doing. It makes cowards and toadies of our allies and renders us completely amoral.

    • Djyrn exitr • 5 hours ago

      The choice of rhetoric is indeed aimed t the home front. I often find it frustrating and wish that everyone spoke plainly. The realities of our politic are against doing so. Those realities make liars and hypocrites out of all of us.

  • putnamp • an hour ago

    I don’t know if you were swinging for the fences with those last two paragraphs but you sure as hell hit it out of the park.

  • oz MEttee • 2 hours ago

    Mr.Coates, Thank you for your insightful commentary, on this and other subjects you’ve participated in. All I’d like to say here is that I’m deeply troubled about drone warfare, the white paper, and the entire doctrine of Pre-immenient intervention.

    We are now witnessing the extension of it, over and over(that of pre-immenient intervention). We have elected officials, now in power, who claim they are charged with the duty to protect the nation “at all costs”. This now includes the intrusion and subversion of our Constitutional rights, both at home and abroad.

    Unfortunately for us, I feel this is the continued “dust settling” from September 11th,
    when the government gave itself the right to do whatever was necessary, to ensure

    total security. And promote the need for it.

    While I feel one can make the case that we, the citizens are complicit in what is happening now by not protesting this course more strongly, I also strongly believe we have a Federal government in power that is out of control.

  • lurch3 • 3 hours ago

    Seems that all wars have civilian deaths. Nobody wants women, children or anyone killed that just happen to be in the area targeted. It’s not just the drones. When pilots drop bombs or soldiers on the ground. Civilians do die.

    The drones do save American soldiers lives, but do nothing to stop civilian deaths. I don’t know what the answer is, or if there is an answer.

  • StephenM123 • 3 hours ago

    The discussion of ‘imminent threat’ in the context of drone strikes always reminds me of Monty Python’s discussion of llap-goch, the ancient Welsh art of self-defense:

    “The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore, the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU… Or BETTER… BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!”

    http://www.llapgoch.org.uk/

    • Lorehead StephenM123 • 2 hours ago

      It’s very similar to how George W. Bush decided to redefine “preemptive war,” which had meant a war launched as the other side was attacking or about to attack. Fewer people knew what the term meant, so he got away with it.

  • paul beard • 5 hours ago

    Not that I want to come up with new ways of killing people but why are aren’t these drones providing better surveillance and why are they limited to lobbing weapons of indiscriminate killing? We can do that from carriers or high-altitude flights. Why not a aerial sniper rifle keyed to facial or pattern recognition? If these weapons are proxies for American soldiers, why are they used like cruise missiles?

    I think using the drones for anything but surveillance is a losing proposition. They’re mechanized mercenaries — history has a lot to say about the effect of using mercenary forces, for both the side that hires them and that they are used against.

    If they are supposed to offer a smarter, cleaner alternative to traditional warfare, I’m not seeing it.

  • amphibian_SW • 3 hours ago

    Americans need not feel ashamed for doing what states always do–act in their best interests.

    This notion is often taken as a given, but I disagree. Leaving aside the issues I have with states in themselves, I don’t America acting in its own interest is a good thing. That has screwed over a whole bunch of people. I’m not saying states should disregard the well-being of their own citizens, but that of others should count too.

    (In the Philosophy of Just War, a state is seen as “minimally just” if it
    1. protects its own citizens’ rights

    2. does not infringe on the rights of other citizens

    3. is recognized by its own people
    )

    Just looking after your own interests can definitely be something to be ashamed of.

    And perhaps I’m nitpicking, but this is an idea that is seen as so commonsensical when it is not, that I feel it shoul be examined when it’s thrown aroun.

    • Chadlio T. McCool amphibian_SW • 3 hours ago

      If not it’s own interest, then in who’s interest should America act? I can see an argument for a policy of complete isolation, although I wouldn’t think it wise, but an argument to not act in the interest of the nation is an argument to dissolve the state.

      • amphibian_SW Chadlio T. McCool • 3 hours ago

        not really. You can act in the interest of your state while also considering the effects this has on others. Sometimes you’d go ahead with policy that harms others because it’s really important for the survival of your state, but often you would reconsider.

        I’m not saying that American interests don’t count, I’m not even say that American policy should consider others as important as Americans — but I do believe that considering the effects we have on others is kinda important.

        • Chadlio T. McCool amphibian_SW • 2 hours ago

          I think that’s a different argument than the original one made. You must consider the interests of others when considering your interests is required or you aren’t fully calculating all the effects of your actions on your interests. On this we don’t have a disagreement.

          • amphibian_SW Chadlio T. McCool • 2 hours ago

            you’re right, that was kinda shifty of me. Happened accidentally though, promise.

            Let me get back to my original point though. While I accept that nations will put their own interests first in our world, I don’t necessarily think that that’s a good thing. Often it will be, but it shouldn’t be assumed. I’m coming from a more cosmopolitan viewpoint where I try to consider all as equally important. Often it will make sense for countries to ‘protect their own.’ But if that has disproportionate harmful effects on others (as much if not most of America’s foreign policy has) then I’m not convinced the ‘interests’ of this country should come first.

            • Chadlio T. McCool amphibian_SW • an hour ago

              While I can acknowledge that acting in the best interest of individual nation-states has led to negative consequences to people who are defined as outside of said nation-state I’m not sure if there’s a better method of organizing the world. We haven’t evolved past the point of tribalism and while it’d be nice if logic and law could govern the world effectively it seems power still persuades people more effectively.

  • Esther Simpson • an hour ago

    I don’t think my virtue, yours, or our nation’s, is divine. But I do think it is ok to target and kill criminals whom we know are trying to kill large groups of Americans.

    We could quibble about specific actions on specific intelligence, except we don’t have the data to do it, and for good reason.

    Quit your whining, Ta Nesihi.

    • trickydonut Esther Simpson • 4 minutes ago

      Is it okay for us to debate whether drone strikes are acceptable to us if they kill large numbers of children? Why shouldn’t we know that, if that is what’s happening? Why are you so eager for our government to hide the effects of the attacks it carries out in our name?

  • Cole Stevens • 2 hours ago

    Americans are so forgetful, myopic, short-sighted and have the memory span of a box of hammers. Does anyone here remember a little incident etched in our memories called 9-11? I believe over 3,000 innocent people were killed on that day, mostly Americans. Also, I know most of you have already forgotten the first attempt to bring down the Twin Towers in 1993, the American Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya in 1998 and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. Most of these terrorist acts were planned by people who we helped in Afghanistan to rid them of their Soviet occupiers. That’s the thanks we get. We live in a new age people. Our enemy is everywhere and borders do not and will not contain them. They are RIGHT NOW actively plotting to kill innocent Americans regardless where those Americans are and some of them doing the plotting are actual American citizens themselves. It’s nice that we have freedom of speech that gives us the ability to Monday-morning quarterback, second guess and criticize our politicians, Secretary of Defense, Director of the CIA, etc. in the confines of our nice, cozy, comfortable homes without the fear of getting killed. We are filled with righteous indignation
    when our government actually plots to seek out, kill and eliminate those (Gasp! The Horror!) who want to kill and eliminate us, mostly because of the very freedoms we have. We demand cutbacks in Defense and set guidelines for our Intelligence Agencies. We have to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and get
    lambasted in the U.N. by foreign governments that could care less about what
    happens to us. Then when we are attacked, like 9-11, we are upset because our
    government failed to stop the unimaginable and we demand action. I DO NOT CARE
    how many innocent civilians are killed when our government performs a Drone
    strike on a suspected radical Islamic terrorist who spews hate and gives
    marching orders to his followers to kill us. In fact I hope that he has his
    seven wives and 23 children sitting on his lap when we come knocking. All you
    pretentious, pious, self-righteous, two-faced “Americans” sleep safe tonight. I
    know you will, because hardened men stand watch. Please forgive me for pointing out the obvious.

    • StephenM123 Cole Stevens • 9 minutes ago

      “I DO NOT CARE how many innocent civilians are killed …I hope that he has hisseven wives and 23 children sitting on his lap when we come knocking.”

      It’s always salutary to see the mind of a nasty little savage at work. This is just the kind of mentality that every vicious dictator in history has been able to mobilize, to mindlessly cheer the deaths of innocent people in the service of… what, exactly? Not even the Greater Good: you just like the idea of them being killed, don’t you?

    • StephenM123 Cole Stevens • 3 minutes ago

      Oh, yeah, and every two-bit wanker in the world quotes Churchill about “rough men” (that’s the term, actually), thinking it’s Orwell and they are saying something profound.

  • Carlos Nells • an hour ago

    This magazine…fanzine…whatever it is, would much rather see thousands of people killed by bombs or thousands of our soldiers ‘die by the sword’ as rand paul says…than see some problem of intellectual consternation arise about the use of drones. Problems like that philosophy stuff worry him a lot.

  • Grotoff • 29 minutes ago

    Those militants had brought their women and children to their camp. They put them in harms way. If SS troops had brought their families with them to their military encampments and those families had died on a bomber raid, no one would blink. Put it in perspective.

    • StephenM123 Grotoff • 15 minutes ago

      You have proof of this? There’ve certainly been plenty of occasions where this sort of thing has happened simply because of a total intelligence fuck-up on America’s part… Google ‘Uruzgan’ and ‘wedding’, for example.

      I’m sure that your identification of those women and children with the SS helps you to dismiss their deaths, but you really should remember that that’s therapeutic for you, and not necessarily connected with anything in the real world.

    • Brendan Clogston Grotoff • 17 minutes ago

      I’d start with saying there is some blinking about some of the civilian death tolls incurred by bombing in WWII, particularly when the military gains in these campaigns proved to be ambiguous or even negligible There’s also quite a bit of blinking with Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you could make something of a case that Hirohito was holding Japan at large hostage in his refusal to surrender).

      That being said, I’d like to see your data on the women and children in these areas having being brought in by militants (and not simply being residents). That’s a very specific assertion about an area and a situation we have very little certain information about. I’d also point to the fact that “all military-age males in a strike zone” are counted as militants in the casualty reports. It’s ambiguous, then, if we’re even talking about “SS and their families” or “German men and their families.” That’s not even bringing up the question of signature strikes, which amount to “bomb German men acting sketchy.”

  • Harry Kuheim • 35 minutes ago

    This Author sounds exactly like a “AR -15 Gun Nut/Survivalist” who is convinced the “Government” is after him some how…surprising isn’t it that Authors, Editors,Media, and Bloggers on the Left are so paranoid about the Government that is being led and expanded by Obama?

  • welshmx • 3 hours ago

    It is the old manifest destiny credo. We can kill as many brown skinned women and children as we want to. We are the Wild West. This is how our military has done its thing for hundreds of years. These are not collateral deaths. They are death as usual, the American way.

    • Chadlio T. McCool welshmx • 2 hours ago

      One of these things, is not like the other, one of these things is not the same. We didn’t wake up in the early aughts and decide to launch an anti-terrorism initiative just to kill brown folks. There was a terrorist attack on American soil that launched us on this path. Is it the correct path, probably not, but Manifest Destiny isn’t the cause of our current actions.

  • skamble • 19 minutes ago

    I think for Americans the drone attacks over Afghanistan happen far away from home and are to help the American troops there, who may conceivably be brought home so that there would be no need for drone attacks in the first place, if this was to happen.

    But I live 20 km from the border with Gaza and it is many times already that I had to lie down on the ground on radar warning so as to increase my chances of survival if a Grad missile from Gaza explodes nearby – which they did, so close that the house shook.

    For us here drones are what helps us stay alive. They were also, as far as I know, invented by Israeli technicians who liked to play with radio-controlled model airplanes some 40 years ago until they realized these toys could save lives on a battlefield.

  • Brendan Clogston • 33 minutes ago

    I would only disagree with the idea that the white paper “obscures” the issue. I think that would depend on what the issue is you’re specifically tackling (and I think there are a handful of them in drone warfare). Speaking from a purely moral perspective, I don’t think the question of American vs. Pakistani/Yemeni/Martian is even relevant. I was always somewhat uncomfortable when the failure of the Iraq war was measured by the press and the left in American blood, with the Iraqi toll often left to the NGOs. That we’re taking such aggressive and deadly strides in our own self-interest while neglecting to even consider the consequences of those strides or the possibility of their selfishness is dangerous, and contemptible (and ancient).

    But when I think about drones, and the last decade of policies of which it is the culmination – Patriot Act, the NSA’s domestic programs, NDAA – as a historical moment, when I think about the future, and the seeds these policies plant, the white paper and what it represents scare the hell out of me. Scare me not only as a bit of anti-democratic behavior, nor even for the paranoid fear that someday I’ll hear a hellfire whistle above my head in Barcelona: scare me because the idea, and the acceptance of the idea, deconstructs the whole ideological framework of democracy, and even republicanism.

    The right of a trial and due process under the law isn’t as sexy as freedom of religion or suffrage, but they’re foundational: you cannot get any of the rest until you say “we don’t trust you, government, with our lives and freedom; if you want to take either, you damn well better be able to prove you need to.” Now, I’m not so naive to think that politicians and leaders have respected these rights universally, but now it’s perfectly permissible, even savvy, a sign of good judgment and realism, to dismiss the sacredness of “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process” as a sentimental suicide pact with abstractions. Due process has now essentially been defined as: “the government if full of smart people, and these smart people think very hard and very smartly about these things, and are worthy of your trust. Anything beyond that, like, say, a trial, is a courtesy.” Even half of the left is saying “trust the leader. The leader knows best.”

    Democracy and Republicanism aren’t just systems of government: they’re a set of ideals, without which the system doesn’t mean very much. Democracy thrives on a sacred distrust; elections are just a ritual without it. If we desanctify that distrust, we don’t have a failed democracy; we have a zombie democracy.

  • skamble • an hour ago

    Right now we are living in the world where the USA is the most powerful nation, in the military sense. There are wars and violence still, as the article explains.
    But in 1939 the US were weak compared to Germany and Japan. We all know how that developed.
    Isn’t it true that all the troubles of today’s world are nothing compared with World War II? Doesn’t it logically follow that today’s world is relatively peaceful precisely because the US is its predominant power? Would it be a smart idea to try a different world, in which China/Iran/Russia/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would be stronger than the US? What would happen then?

    I don’t even want to think about it but it seems to me that likely hell would break loose, for the lack of a more precise description.

    • ResiliencyIsKey skamble • an hour ago

      That the world is “relatively peaceful” is due largely to nuclear weapons, which made total warfare (among the nations who could pursue it) obsolete. Full stop.

      But war and the reasons for it haven’t gone away, hence modern insurgency and the rise of non-state actors. The developed world has yet to find a solution to this problem (whether through technology or by societal change).

      Books that I wholeheartedly recommend the Horde concerning these topics: The Transformation of War and The Rise and Decline of the State, both by Martin Van Creveld.

  • Paddy_O_Door • an hour ago

    I agree that lying about the actual ramifications of drone strikes is wrong.

    That said, there is no “good” way to deal with terrorists plotting the next 9/11 or encouraging suicide bombers to run through our embassies.

    The only other option I see is trying to win the hearts and minds of the terrorists with reasoned, impassioned pleas for world peace. I’m willing to give that a chance if everyone else is on board. The UK and IRA settled their differences at the table, not the battlefield. It IS possible.

    Otherwise, we have no choice but to fly remote controlled planes into the airspace of sovereign nations to preemptively strike enemies before they strike us.

  • halfkidding • 2 hours ago

    Areal bombing does not win wars. It didn’t win WWII and certainly it didn’t win Vietnam. , These few ‘targeted’ ones cannot possibly win anything and let’s not forget you can’t have a war against a strategy, terrorism that is.

    While hubris is probably the best explanation for our massive and fruitless bombing campaigns of the Vietnam era today’s little ones are probably best explained by institutional inertia mixed with careerism and ego. Brennen is a powerful man made ever more powerful by embracing every last possible theory of the GWOT and every possible tactic that can be used to fight it. What is good for the GWOT is good for Brennen and his brethren Morality or any moral philosophy being non issues as they are antithetical to modern institutional organizational interests. On the bright side we probably are not capable of using nukes to kill the several hundreds of millions of mostly Arabic but Iranian Muslims too that would be needed to really try to prove that areal bombs can win a war, or not.

    If you need balance then Salafi Jihadists are beyond a defense on any possible moral scorecard as well. Too bad we and the Saudis invented them, or if not quite invented them then nurtured them.

  • jay_see_are • 5 hours ago

    By the way, Lawrence Wright’s “Looming Tower” needs to be on must read list in the ELBC (effete liberal book club).

  • jay_see_are • 5 hours ago

    “But, in retrospect, we know that the cameras missed the women and children.”

    Did we really? I think it’s worth revisiting Errol Morris’ “Fog of War” for some insight here. Particularly this section: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

  • Chadlio T. McCool • 6 hours ago

    My point being not everyone who accepts Obama’s use of drones buys into Obama’s line about why he uses them.

Politics Beast

John Brennan and the Drone Consensus

by Feb 9, 2013 4:45 AM EST

Everyone was waiting for an epic clash between Congress and the White House over the morality of drones this week. Instead, we got pragmatic compromise. Daniel Klaidman reports.

In the run-up to yesterday’s Senate confirmation hearings for would-be CIA director John Brennan, everyone was waiting for an epic clash over the morality of drones. Brennan, having spent the past four years as Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, has been at the center of the administration’s targeted killing program—which seemed to make his nomination the perfect moment for a showdown between Congress and the White House on the subject. The potential for drama was only heightened with the recent leak of a white paper outlining the Obama administration’s legal rationale for targeting American citizens.

John Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan testifies at his nomination hearing to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency before the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call, via Getty)

And the hearing did get off to an unruly start. Code Pink protesters repeatedly disrupted the proceedings until they were ejected from the room. One woman held up a placard that read “drones fly, children die,” while others called Brennan an “assassin.” There were also plenty of heated exchanges between Brennan and the senators: Democrats bored into him over the drone program’s lack of transparency, and Republicans hammered him with questions about classified leaks and his alleged involvement in the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation program.

Yet despite the testy exchanges and the theatrical protests, it’s worth noting that not a single senator said he or she opposed targeted killings. It was perhaps a recognition that drones are here to stay—a permanent part of America’s hi-tech 21st-century arsenal. Indeed, instead of a dramatic moral showdown, the hearing showcased evidence that Congress and the Obama administration could be moving toward pragmatic compromises which would impose more accountability on, but not eliminate, the drone program.

These compromises came in the form of two concrete proposals. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed that the panel was reviewing proposals to establish a special court that would assess the government’s evidence against American citizens it wants to target—an idea that may give comfort to critics who say the current approach deprives Americans of their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Feinstein was vague about how a special court overseeing targeted killings might work. But she suggested it could be an “analogue” to the secret judicial panel that grants the government surveillance authority in counterterrorism and espionage cases.

To be sure, the prospect of federal judges second-guessing the targeting judgments of military and intelligence officials will without a doubt face stiff opposition from the Pentagon and the CIA. Still, while Brennan reacted cautiously to the idea, he also said it was “certainly worthy of discussion.”

To get a sense for why Feinstein is so eager to impose this kind of accountability, it helps to understand just how ad-hoc the administration’s current process can be.

To get a sense for why Feinstein is so eager to impose this kind of accountability, it helps to understand just how ad-hoc the administration’s current process can be. Consider the lethal targeting of Anwar al Awlaki, the American citizen and al Qaeda member who was killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. Awlaki was actually placed on the kill list before the Justice Department had finished its opinion, though Obama’s lawyers had already weighed in orally. As for due process, it was far more informal than anything Feinstein envisions. One example: before State Department legal adviser Harold Koh was willing to give his blessing to the deliberate killing of an American, even one who had joined an enemy force, he wanted to scrutinize the intelligence himself. So in March 2010, he holed up in a secure room in the State Department and pored over hundreds of pages of classified reports detailing Awlaki’s alleged involvement in terror plots. Koh had set his own standard to justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen: he felt that Awlaki would have to be shown to be “evil,” with iron-clad intelligence to prove it. After absorbing the chilling intel, which included multiple bombing plots and elaborate plans to attack Americans with ricin and cyanide, Koh concluded that Awlaki was not just evil; he was “satanic.” (I originally wrote about this in my book Kill or Capture.)

Another proposal that came up at the hearing would impose a measure of accountability on the back end. Brennan was asked whether he favored the establishment of an independent, or at least more objective, panel that could conduct after-action inquiries in the wake of individual strikes and assess the effectiveness of the program. Absolutely, responded Brennan, who has himself championed the idea within the administration, arguing that there is an implicit conflict of interest when those who pull the trigger are then in the position of judging their own work.

For those—and there are many—who are distrustful of the government’s assertion that civilian casualties under the program have been negligible, this could be a valuable check. And it’s an idea that seems to be gaining traction outside and inside the administration. In his latest column, The New York Times’s David Brooks called for the appointment of an independent board made up of retired military and intelligence officers who could keep tabs on the effectiveness of the program. Meanwhile, two sources tell The Daily Beast that the co-chairs of the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board—David Boren (a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and Chuck Hagel (Obama’s nominee for secretary of Defense)—have suggested that the National Counterterrorism Center play such a role.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Klaidman, a former NEWSWEEK managing editor, is writing a book on President Obama and terrorism to be published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2012.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Sort: Newest | Oldest
chris nw 4 hours ago

We ‘dims” are certainly not crazy about the idea of drones or any warfare. It really does come down to the lesser of evils. Perhaps, just perhaps, one soldier will spent their next birthday or Christmas alive, with their family because Obama chose to fight with drones rather than send that soldier into a combat zone. Then it is worth it. Don’t believe me? Go ask that soldier’s mother.

durogoff 4 hours ago

Roland of Roncesvalles,shot by Saracen fronds, exclaims:

« Maudit soit le lâche qui inventa les armes capables de tuer à distance! »

“Cursed is the coward who invented weapons capable of killing at a distance!’

xrandian 4 hours ago

Talk about hypocrisy.

Did you guys forget that you love and defend anything that has to do with war?

xrandian 4 hours ago

Except if it’s Obama’s policies, then it’s a really bad thing.

There isn’t one thing you people  have ever agreed with Obama on.

Not one thing.

Well, guess what? you lost the election. Keep up the hate, you’ll keep losing.

Wait…..That’s a GREAT idea.

chris nw 4 hours ago

@xrandian

They are playing right into our hands with this tactic.

Hate kills and wars destroy. Every war leader in the history of the world has led his troops to final destruction.

highcarry 5 hours ago

well barry, you pi**ed off the pinks. you poor, poor man.

firemetalrat_1 5 hours ago

But according to at least one former senior administration official, Obama’s obsession with targeted killings is ‘dangerously seductive.’ Retired admiral Dennis Blair, the former US Director of National Intelligence, told the paper that the campaign was:

The politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no US casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.

 

I hope Obama does not think this policy is popular, I think he is mistaken.

telfish 5 hours ago

@firemetalrat_1

Even less popular would be another 3000 dead on US soil.

People may not like the Drones but we have not been attacked on Obama’s watch.

Unless we are prepared either to completely withdraw from The middle East or accept dead on American soil then we have little choice.

Grammers_1 5 hours ago

@telfish @firemetalrat_1

Wait for it….wait for it…

chris nw 4 hours ago

@Grammers_1 @chris nw @telfish

They must be turning on each other, in frustration. Not very good at sharing are they? Good practice for when they will need those bunkers, for real, when Obama’s SS or drones come for them and their weapons.

chris nw 5 hours ago

Without the ability to better name our enemies, we identify them by labeling them as “The Axis of Evil.” Then we rattle our swords at them and conduct ourselves like ignorant primitives, without the benefit of history’s repeated lessons, that teach us that the hatred of whole nations, religions,and races, gains us only the similar gift of their hatred in return. Enough banging of the drums of war.

Must we eternally learn these lessons over and over? We are ceaselessly, like the blind, finding our way through the forest and forever falling over the very same precipice.

Speak-to-Truth 5 hours ago

 I’m astonished at the numbers of people that want to make this a partisan issue. It is so much more complicated.  There are points of deliberation into the moral and ethical questions that many of you responding to this article don’t even question.  Get over political partisanship.  Start asking the questions of what is permissible in war.  Is this a war? UBL certainly declared one against America in 1996.  Are members of the group then considered combatants?  Given this newest technology, do we need to define how it should be deployed?  What are those parameters?  Let’s please have a discussion on the merits of real questions and dispense with the idiotic name-calling and partisan bickering.

LA 5 hours ago

Oh Please Speak, libtards aren’t here to have a discussion. They’re here to try and prove a point and to bow down to their messiah Barry the Great! It doesn’t matter what barry and the democrats do or say the libtards on this site are in lockstep agreement. I think we could actually shear them and spin their wool

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

@LA

Exhibit A: Fox News watcher = Fair and Balanced.

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

I mean saying something like that means its true.

Otherwise ….. why would so many people watch?

Its not like people enjoy being lied to ….. so that every situation fits their beliefs.

Naturally every scientist in the world is in on the Global Warming conspiracy.

Grammers_1 5 hours ago

@LA

New drinking game – How many tomes can “libtard” be used in one long run-on sentence?

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

@Grammers_1@LA

Oh Please Speak, libtards aren’t here to have a libtardian discussion. They’re here to try and prove a libtard point and to bow down to their libtard messiah Barry the Great! It doesn’t matter what libtard barry and the libtard democrats do or say the libtardian libtards on this site are in lockstep libtard agreement. I think we could actually shear them libtards and spin their wool

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

Remember when Bush ordered the execution of an American in Syria.

Ya.

That guy reneged on a debt.

So it was OK by my fellow conservatives when he died.

Money is just that important.

firemetalrat_1 5 hours ago

@teabaggingforjesus_1

I read that every person who ever knew Obama before he became President for life, is now deceased.

firemetalrat_1 5 hours ago

@keith2366 @firemetalrat_1 @teabaggingforjesus_1

Its the one that Pinko Kansas women worked with. The one that gave birth to the Anti-christ who is in office. it is very liberal.

A half Hawaiian activist whose father is Irish and yet she hates white people, teaches at. She and her sister are always harassing the UN in to Hawaiian Recognition as an indigenous people. They are both enemies of the hawaii state government. One sister is a professor at the University and the other is an attorney.

keith2366 5 hours ago

We have troops in 90 countries.  We are pissing off locals and making radicals in some of these places.  We don’t have many options.  How many wars do we fight at one time?  The far left is upset with Obama because of the drones.  The far right is upset with Obama because he is Obama.  I see the drones as the one safest option.  Either that or bring our troops home and let the rest of the world survive without us.  We are not paid to be the policeman of the world.  God did not give us the job to be policeman of the world.

Look at our history over the last 60 years.  We have continuously backed the wrong dictator, the wrong ruling party or the wrong democratically elected president of a majority of the countries we have meddled in.  We have a poor record of picking winners.  So we are continually making enemies.  If you don’t want drones then let us get the hell out of the rest of the world.

heemowatt 5 hours ago

@keith2366

And I was so hoping Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would give up the fancy fake uniforms and treat his people with dignity. It’s weird how a shah with so many shiny medals, ribbons, and gold brocade could be such a monster. We sure do suck at handicapping despots.

Lolita2010 5 hours ago

Not OK to water board terrorists

OK to Drone Americans.

Liberal logic at its best

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

@Lolita2010

Because waterboarding terrorists is fun. It gave Bush and Cheney a sexual release. Never provided any information but it did give a sexual release.

Does not do anything substantial, but its fun.

Drones only protect our troops.

Where is the fun in that?

Lolita2010 5 hours ago

@teabaggingforjesus_1 @Lolita2010 As Leon Panetta recently acknowedged, water boarding helped lead to the capture of Bin Laden.

teabaggingforjesus_1 5 hours ago

@Lolita2010 @teabaggingforjesus_1

You mean waterboarding was used to follow a courier?

I thought that was a drone?

His actual words where: “played a role” which can really mean anything.

If they helped, he would have said helped.

LA 5 hours ago

I think what you’re smelling is your rotten libtard breath. Go shower would ya?

LA 5 hours ago

come on it’s called general overall hygene. Ask your mom for a bar of soap and getter done!

Lolita2010 5 hours ago

@teabaggingforjesus_1 @Lolita2010 KSM gave up the code name under water boarding, which led to the ultimate success of the mission

Without the code name of the courier, chances are they never would have identified him

Torturing terrorists who would drop a nuclear bomb on us without blinking is a GOOD thing

And under the right conditions you’d torture in a second

firemetalrat_1 5 hours ago

@Lolita2010 @teabaggingforjesus_1

Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that the interrogation of Bin Laden’s courier, who then led U.S. military teams to the Al Qaeda leader’s compound, did not involve any waterboarding.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272860/Defense-Secretary-Panetta-admits-CIA-used-information-waterboarding-capture-Osama-Bin-Laden.html#ixzz2KS1eREiT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Lolita2010 5 hours ago

@Grammers_1 @Lolita2010 @teabaggingforjesus_1 I favor torture of terrorists who’d do a 9/11, and I oppose drones killing American citizens
Check

Speak-to-Truth 5 hours ago

@Lolita2010 @teabaggingforjesus_1 The particular American in question was a member of an organization that had declared war against the United States.  Does that make him a traitor?  It does in my eyes.  How about yours?  Does he deserve a day in court? Yes, if he can be brought to justice.  Could he be brought to justice?  I don’t know, and I’m betting you don’t either.

 © 2013 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC

Foreign Policy Magazine

Saturday,   February 9,   2013

Obama’s Legal Netherworld

The president isn’t claiming too much power to kill Americans who join al Qaeda — but too little.

BY JOHN YOO, ROBERT DELAHUNTY | FEBRUARY 8, 2013

Suppose a U.S. military special operations unit came upon an al Qaeda training camp in Africa. It discovers terrorist trainers teaching recruits how to use automatic weapons, improvise explosive devices, and practice suicide attacks and small unit tactics. Though the personnel hail from different nations, reconnaissance suggests that some of them may be Americans.

What should the team do? Under the laws of war, the U.S. military unit can surprise the instructors and recruits with snipers and artillery as well as shooting at closer quarters. But under President Barack Obama’s half-hearted approach to terrorism, revealed in Tuesday’s leaked Justice Department memo, military units on the ground or drones in the air would have to pause and seek guidance from multiple bureaucrats. Instead of having the traditional authority to kill the enemy and destroy their resources, American soldiers and agents have entered a legal netherworld of Obama’s creation. The speed and decisiveness of U.S. counterterrorism operations will suffer, even as the administration withdraws from Iraq and now Afghanistan, and gives up the intelligence networks there.

In place of the clarity of the rules of war, the administration has thrust American soldiers into the three- and four-factor balancing tests that govern police officers walking the beat in downtown New York. For the first time in the history of American arms, presidential advisers will sit and weigh the “due process” rights of enemy soldiers, judge whether they pose an “imminent” threat, or decide if capture “becomes feasible.” Due process rights for the enemy, according to the DOJ memo, will require a careful balancing of the “nature and quality of the intrusion” on the enemy’s constitutional rights against “the governmental interests.” And Attorney General Eric Holder limits the target to “an operational leader continually planning attacks” against the United States.

To be clear, the memo, technically a “white paper,” is correct in affirming that the United States is at war with al Qaeda. That conclusion rests on the actions of two presidents over four terms, Congress over the past decade, the Supreme Court, the U.N. Security Council, and NATO. It cannot be seriously disputed — although some liberal critics cling to the belief that al Qaeda is simply a criminal conspiracy, not a true belligerent, and that only law-enforcement actions, not military ones, may be taken against it. Given that the United States is at war, it follows that it may legitimately use lethal force against enemy combatants, regardless of their nationality.  Enemy soldiers, even when not engaged in active hostilities, are legitimate targets during war. If that is true of enemy soldiers in uniform, it must be true also of al Qaeda operatives, who may not wear uniforms but who are the functional equivalent of regular troops. And just as a U.S. national serving in the German Army in 1944 or the Confederate Army in 1863 could be lawfully targeted and killed, so may a U.S. national performing a military function for al Qaeda.

Despite claims that the president is asserting a radically new and menacing authority, Obama’s decision to target al Qaeda operatives who are U.S. nationals is by no means unprecedented. The fact is that American presidents (and state governors) have lawfully deployed military force against citizens in insurrection, rebellion, or war against the United States from the beginning of the nation. In 1787, the very year in which the Constitution was framed, the governor of Massachusetts deployed the state militia to put down Shay’s Rebellion. President George Washington personally led federalized militia troops into western Pennsylvania to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. President Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina in the “nullification crisis” of 1832. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln deployed Union armies and navies against the Confederates who, despite being in rebellion, remained U.S. citizens. President Franklin Roosevelt directed operations against U.S. citizens fighting for Axis forces during the Second World War. President Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops into Little Rock Arkansas when angry mobs of segregationists threatened to prevent African-American children from attending the city’s public schools.

A pattern of congressional legislation reaching back to the early republic reinforces such authority. The Insurrection Act of 1807, which remains in force, authorizes the president in proper circumstances to put down insurrections and rebellions. And Supreme Court decisions are also in accord. In Moyer v. Peabody (1909), the court, speaking through Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ruled that the governor of Colorado had the right and duty to suppress a local insurrection, stating that “he shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that end; that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace.”

Where the white paper commits serious error is in positing that the “due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to al Qaeda operatives at large. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that once suspected enemy combatants had been captured and detained, some measure of “process” was owed to them. But the court’s decision applied to enemy combatants only after their capture, but not before it. The distinction makes perfect sense. It would be shocking to give a captured enemy combatant a drumhead trial on charges of committing war crimes and then shoot him moments later. But minutes before being captured, that same enemy combatant would have been a lawful target for lethal fire. Enemies reduced to captivity do not pose anything like the degree of danger of those under arms and at large.

The white paper’s assumption that U.S. citizens who are enemy combatants are constitutionally entitled to due process even while engaged in, or available for, hostilities is both gratuitous and in error. It is not compelled by the language of the due process clause, which protects “persons,” not “citizens.” If the white paper were right in claiming that U.S. nationals in al Qaeda deserved due process rights, then it should logically have concluded that the same was true of Saudis or Yemenis in al Qaeda. Further, the white paper’s extension of due process to enemy combatants at large is not dictated by any Supreme Court decision. It also has no basis in the traditional laws of war or state practice. And it carries significant operational disadvantages.

Some liberal critics of the white paper object to the fact that it allows senior executive branch officials to decide who appears on targeting lists, without the possibility of judicial review. That criticism is misplaced for several reasons. First, the Federal District Court correctly held in the Awlaki case that targeting decisions presented a “political question.” In other words, the federal courts lacked the competence to decide which targets to select; that difficult assignment called for the specialized expertise of trained military and intelligence personnel, subject to the supervision of their civilian political superiors in the executive branch. Second, there is no basis for the suspicion that executive-branch officials have incentives to target U.S. citizens wantonly, without careful consideration of intelligence information (some of it from on the ground informants) linking them to al Qaeda’s war against the United States. They may commit errors, but there is no reason to think that they act in bad faith or for careerist purposes.

The president and his senior advisors are fully entitled to rely on the work of their military and intelligence subordinates. In Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974), a case arising out of the 1970 killings of several Kent State students by the Ohio National Guard, the court wrote:

In the case of higher officers of the executive branch, however, the inquiry is far more complex since the range of decisions and choices . . . is virtually infinite. . . . [O]fficials with a broad range of duties and authority must often act swiftly and firmly at the risk that action deferred will be futile or constitute virtual abdication of office. . . . [T]hese officers are entitled to rely on traditional sources for the factual information on which they decide and act.

In short, the white paper is an odd hybrid of sound and unsound analysis. Although it is broadly correct in its conclusions, its account of constitutional law is flawed and its effect on U.S. counterterrorism operations could cause serious damage. In the end, it seems to be driven by the Obama administration’s desire to straddle a difficult political issue rather than by a genuine concern for the nation’s good.

Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Robert Delahunty is an associate professor at the University of St. Thomas’s School of Law in Minneapolis. Both served in the U.S. Justice Department under President George W. Bush.

3 comments

FPWelcome to Foreign Policy’s new commenting system! The good news is that it’s now easier than ever to comment and share your insights with friends. Here’s how it works: You can now sign in by creating a LiveFyre account (which will replace the ForeignPolicy.com accounts from now on), or using a Twitter or Facebook account, and carry on a conversation with your fellow commenters in the section below. You do not have to sign in using a social network if you choose to remain anonymous – simply use a LiveFyre account to continue commenting. For more information, click here.

Powered byLivefyre logogears
Sort: Newest | Oldest
coggocog

Drones Assassinations: More the Merrier@elcidharth.com

seconds agoReplyLike

Conversation on FP.com

delta5297

I have to question your definition of Al-Qaeda operatives as “soldiers”. We can’t technically be “at war” with Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda is not a state, and their operatives are not fighting out of allegiance to a nation but volunteering to advance a cause. As such, they are not soldiers but civilians (very badly behaving civilians mind you, otherwise known as criminals), and our attempts to bring them to justice are by definition a police action. Just because this police action involves a lot of firepower like IEDs, rocket-propelled grenades and Predator drones doesn’t change the fact that it’s a police action.

10 hours agoReplyLike
majrod

 delta5297  Where does it say a war must be conducted against a nation state?

Where all the American Indains, Phillipine and other guerrillas (Latin America), Somali Pirates, Barbary Pirates nation states???

These semantic games just serve to confuse the matter which is the whole goal of the left anyway.

10 hours agoReplyLike
FP Logo

11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Friday, February 8, 2013 As of 10:32 PM EST

  • Of God of Destruction, Godwin’s Law and I

    Sid Harth – Dec 17, 2012 – Limited –

    Of God of Destruction, Godwin’s Law and I Of Drones + Lasers + Godwin’s Law and I

    DIY Drones

    Push to Expand U.S. ‘Kill List’

    Officials Press to Mark Algerian Militant Linked to Gas-Plant Attack as Target for Death or Capture

    By SIOBHAN GORMAN, ADAM ENTOUS and DEVLIN BARRETT

    WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. officials are pressing to mark for the killing or capture of the self-proclaimed mastermind of last month’s attack on an Algerian natural-gas facility that claimed the lives of 37 foreign hostages, including three Americans.

    Adding the Algerian militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar to a U.S. targeted-killing list would represent a significant U.S. expansion into northwestern Africa, extending the reach of the U.S. program of drone strikes and other lethal counterterrorism operations, which have concentrated on Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.

    Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

    Algerian militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar, in an undated photograph.

    Until now, the U.S. has focused on feeding intelligence to allies about Mr. Belmokhtar and his terrorist group, which is an offshoot of al Qaeda’s North African affiliate. That strategy has helped the U.S. maintain an arm’s-length approach to counterterrorism operations in northwest Africa, where Islamist militants have carved out a haven.

    The push by U.S. military and intelligence officials to list Mr. Belmokhtar as a target comes as the militants face a potential guerrilla war with French and African military forces in northern Mali, a base of operations for the Algerian.

    U.S. officials said that Mr. Belmokhtar, whose group has armed itself in part with Libyan weapons, stands as a key example of the dangers of unchecked terrorist aspirations and capabilities in the wake of the Arab Spring, which saw several iron-fisted dictatorships give way to more-chaotic elected governments.

    Some U.S. officials are pressing for a more direct involvement in the hunt for Mr. Belmokhtar, whether with drones, other aircraft or American forces. Such an effort could rely on the military’s special-operations units, with help from the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said.

    The U.S. government has maintained secret “capture-or-kill lists” that date to the period following the 2001 terrorist attacks. Separate lists are maintained by the Pentagon and by the Central Intelligence Agency, and contain the names of terrorist leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Yemen-based al Qaeda bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri and, before his death in 2011, Osama bin Laden.

    A group of senior officials, acting through the White House, vets nominations of terrorist suspects to add to the lists, officials have said. Mr. Belmokhtar likely would be considered for addition to a list of military targets, which is overseen by the Joint Special Operations Command, because the CIA’s drone programs are currently confined to Pakistan and Yemen.

    The targeted-killing program, which expanded under the Obama administration, has been assailed by human-rights groups, but criticism from lawmakers has been muted, a reflection of broad political support in the U.S. for a national-security strategy that prevents terrorist attacks without putting American troops in harm’s way.

    But the 2011 drone strike that killed the radical, American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki raised sharper questions when lawmakers began demanding an explanation of the administration’s rationale for killing suspected terrorists who are American.

    While few Americans have been killed in drone strikes, the campaign has killed over 1,500 people in Pakistan and Yemen. U.S. officials said very few of those killed were civilians. The criteria used by the CIA and the military for determining targets are closely guarded secrets.

    On Thursday, lawmakers grilled President Barack Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser and his pick to lead the CIA over its handling of targeted killings. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) called the program one with “escalating ramifications.”

    The administration this week provided a group of lawmakers their first look at a key legal opinion used to justify the killing of Mr. Awlaki. But lawmakers said they need more information and are pressing for access to additional legal opinions.

    Mr. Belmokhtar would present his U.S. hunters and their allies a somewhat different kind of target from the hard-line al Qaeda militants of Pakistan and Yemen. An Algerian in his 40s, Mr. Belmokhtar has moved through North and West Africa engaging in hostage-taking and criminal smuggling enterprises.

    U.S. officials say that while Mr. Belmokhtar is unlikely to threaten the U.S. homeland at this point, he has already attacked Americans and other westerners in the region. “Belmokhtar is a danger,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “Mokhtar Belmokhtar is carrying out an al Qaeda agenda.”

    On Jan. 16, Mr. Belmokhtar’s group launched a brazen assault on an Algerian gas plant staffed by Westerners. The attack led to a gunbattle with Algerian troops. His terrorist militia, calling itself Those Who Sign In Blood, the offshoot of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, took responsibility for the raid.

    Debates have gone on for years within U.S. counterterrorism circles about the best approach to such groups. In one camp are those who say the U.S. should move quickly against AQIM and others before they are able to extend their reach. Others, most notably within the U.S. State Department, have been more cautious generally, arguing against entanglements in local, regional conflicts.

    While that debate continues, the raid in Algeria all but ended the question of how to approach Mr. Belmokhtar.

    The U.S. has launched a hunt, tapping into intelligence resources around the globe, to identify and locate those who ordered and carried out the Algeria attack. The effort is drawing resources from a host of law enforcement, intelligence, and military agencies—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. They are working closely with other countries, particularly France.

    U.S. intelligence officials see Mr. Belmokhtar as emboldened in the wake of the assault in Algeria. “In the aftermath, intelligence suggests the desire to carry out more attacks against Western interests,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

    Officials say it is easier to add names to U.S. kill lists if the suspected target has clear ties to al Qaeda. However, administration officials have been cautious about expanding U.S. direct strikes to suspected leaders of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, because of disagreements about the extent to which the group directly threatens the U.S. and is plotting attacks against American targets.

    The U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by AQIM militants on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, reflects the difficulty of drawing direct links between the group’s top leaders and operatives with less than clear-cut allegiances.

    Mr. Obama vowed after the Benghazi attack to track down those responsible. But Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that the U.S. was still trying to develop intelligence about those who took part in the attack.

    Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com, Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com

    • AFRICA NEWS
    • January 20, 2013, 1:56 p.m. ET

    Belmokhtar Claims Responsibility for Attack

    By LEILA HATOUM

    DUBAI—Al Qaeda-backed insurgent and kidnapping kingpin Mokhtar Belmokhtar has claimed responsibility for an attack on a gas plant in Algeria that left dead several dozen hostages and fellow militants.

    In a statement Sunday, which was published by Mauritania’s state-run news agency ANI, a favored media outlet for the militants, Mr. Belmokhtar said his group had planned the takeover of the Algerian gas compound in In Amenas, but said the response of Algeria’s army to the assault precipitated the death of many hostages.

    The 40-something militant, who said he was conducting the operation on behalf of al Qaeda, threatened to carry out further attacks against countries taking part in the war in Mali. France and several African nations are spearheading a campaign against insurgents who now control the northern half of the country and have imposed a harsh form of Islamic law, known as Shariah.

    Mr. Belmokhtar, who claims to have lost an eye in a battle against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, now runs a lucrative kidnapping and cigarette-smuggling franchise in Mali. He is known there as “Mr. Marlboro.”

    As a field commander in Mali, Mr. Belmokhtar pledged fealty to al Qaeda. The Saharan offshoot renamed itself al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM. Mr. Belmokhtar has since had a falling out with AQIM, but appears to remain affiliated with al Qaeda.

    In the statement to ANI, Mr. Belmokhtar said the militants offered negotiations and asked the army to pull away to “safeguard the hostages’ and Muslims’ lives,” but helicopter attacks followed.

    “Following the army’s attack, the hostages were taken to the compound to prevent their death, but were again bombarded by the army, which alleged we were heading to a nearby country,” he said. “This clearly shows the indifference of the Algerian army in safeguarding the lives of those detained.”

    Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci called the reaction of his country’s army “responsible and very satisfactory” in neutralizing the terrorists over the past four days.

    “The operation took place with minimal damage and proved the national army’s experience,” he said Sunday.

    The Algerian special forces had shot at militants when they tried to escape as they believed hostages were being executed.

    The statement from the militants said the operation was carefully selected because BP BP.LN -0.26% PLC jointly operated the gas plant with other partners. It said the group, called the “Signing in Blood Brigade,” took control of the gas compound, detaining several foreign nationals.

    The statement repeated warnings for Algerians to stay away from such foreign facilities, as they will be targeted in the future.

    —David Gauthier-Villars in Paris
    contributed to this article.

    Write to Leila Hatoum at leila.hatoum@dowjones.com

    • AFRICA NEWS
    • Updated January 18, 2013, 4:21 a.m. ET

    Suspect in Raid Forged Own Myth

    By DREW HINSHAW

    BAMAKO, Mali—The architect of the kidnapping franchise that claimed responsibility for seizing dozens of foreign hostages in Algeria has a mythic status among fellow militants—spun in part from his own tales.

    European Pressphoto Agency

    An undated image of Algerian militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar.

    It has yet to be confirmed who was behind the attack. But a number of officials, including Algeria’s interior minister, said they had no doubt Mokhtar Belmokhtar was to blame.

    Mr. Belmokhtar’s militia, al Mouthalimin, or Those Who Sign with Blood, said it carried out the attack, while a militant under his command in Mali, Omar Hamaha, gave in the early hours of the raid an accounting of the number of hostages that later matched Western officials’ estimates.

    Mr. Belmokhtar, who came to jihad through Afghanistan, has claimed to have lost his left eye in a battle with Soviet troops—though he was there at a time of little fighting. He has nevertheless earned the nom-de-guerre “The One-Eyed.”

    The Algerian, now around 40 years old, has said he trained at camps in Pakistan run by Osama bin Laden; it isn’t likely he was there for long, analysts say, given his young age at the time.

    “There’s the reality of Belmokhtar and there’s the myth he’s allowed to come into existence,” said J. Peter Pham, a senior adviser to the U.S. Military’s Africa Command and director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center.

    One reality, terrorism experts said, is that Mr. Belmokhtar has made Mali a base for a series of audacious kidnappings.

    Edged out of his native Algeria in the 1990s when government troops pushed Islamic hard-liners to neighboring states, Mr. Belmokhtar began appearing in Mali’s north.

    The dunes, steppes and craggy mountains of the region—about the size of Texas—has sheltered bandits, smugglers, and kidnapping rings for centuries.

    Mali’s northern residents recall Mr. Belmokhtar and his men showing up in trading towns and winning over locals by purchasing goats and other provisions above market prices.

    But mostly, they stayed in the countryside. “They prefer terrain that’s the most difficult—the mountains, rocks, the dunes,” said Aboudou Touré Cheaka, the special representative sent to Mali by its West African neighbors.

    Mali’s weak military largely ignored Mr. Belmokhtar, and it is there he helped engineer his group’s diversification into crime and kidnapping.

    He earned a reputation for escorting convoys carrying contraband, such as weapons and cigarettes. In 2007, an Algerian court convicted him in absentia for trafficking weapons; The French dubbed him Mr. Marlboro.

    In late 2006, the militant band pledged fealty to al Qaeda and renamed itself al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.

    Mr. Belmokhtar appears to have been the principal intermediary between AQIM and al Qaeda in Pakistan, according to analysts who follow the sect, including Robert Fowler, a Canadian diplomat. In 2008, Mr. Belmokhtar’s followers kidnapped Mr. Fowler in Niger, holding him and another Canadian for more than four months.

    Mr. Fowler described Mr. Belmokhtar’s men as people who had feet in both the 7th and 21st centuries. They dressed in rags and survived on rice and powdered milk, yet packed satellite phones, laptops and walkie-talkies while toting, he said, “every single variant of the rifle.”

    In Toyota Hilux pickup trucks, the kidnappers carried him over enormous swaths of the Sahara and shared their dreams of martyrdom. Every few days, Mr. Belmokhtar would appear at random meeting points. He would issue orders, then leave, recalled Mr. Fowler.

    “He struck me as a very serious guy, and quite an effective commander of men,” the former hostage said.

    After the 2011 rebellion in Libya toppled Moammar Gadhafi and opened vast storehouses of weapons, Mr. Belmokhtar tapped into his trove of ransom proceeds to snap up weapons.

    “You’d have your parents who are in Libya, and they’d say, come here, we’re going to pillage a barracks” for arms, said a mayor of a northern Malian town. “Then when they all came back, a whole lot of guys just sold them. And who had the money? It was AQIM.”

    “It’s totally natural we benefited from Libyan arms in such conditions,” he told a private newspaper in Mauritania, Nouakchott Infos, in a 2011 interview.

    The spillover from Libya also benefited the Sahara’s Touareg people, who rekindled their fight for an independent state in northern Mali in January, 2012. But in April, Mr. Belmokhtar’s men burst into Gao, the largest city in Mali’s north, chasing out the Tuaregs occupiers and helping turn the tide of power in the north to Islamist rebels.

    There have since been reports of a dispute between Mr. Belmokhtar and the head of AQIM, Abdelmalek Droukdel, and a communiqué posted on jihadist Web forums in October, purportedly by AQIM, said it had suspended Mr. Belmokhtar for “administrative and disciplinary” reasons.

    In Timbuktu, residents said Mr. Belmokhtar stopped coming by the storied caravan capital that has served as an AQIM base since its takeover of Mali’s north.

    Some militants remained unsure of Mr. Belmokhtar’s arrangement. “AQIM, Belmokhtar, we don’t know what their situation is,” said Algabass Ag Intallah, a commander with Ansar Dine, one of the militias in Mali that received weapons and recruits from AQIM.

    But on Wednesday, Mr. Hamaha, a commander in AQIM who says he answers to Mr. Belmokhtar, said the entire organization was responsible for the Algerian attack, in retaliation against a common foe—France, for intervening in Mali.

    “Now, you’re going to see what you’ve unleashed,” he said.

    Write to Drew Hinshaw at drew.hinshaw@dowjones.com

    Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more details

    John Brennan

    The debate over drones

    IT WAS so much simpler when George W. Bush was president. Outlining America’s plans for Osama bin Laden a few days after the September 11th attacks in 2001, Mr Bush declared: “there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.” For all those at home and abroad made uncomfortable by sweeping assertions of American power it was a moment of predictable provocation. Without surprise, they heard a swaggering Republican president vowing to make his country’s attackers pay, and seeming to pay no more heed to legal niceties than a cowboy bent on a lynching.

    Yet 12 and a half years later, the cautious, lawyerly Barack Obama—a Democratic president with nothing of the cowboy about him—finds himself still locked in combat with Islamic extremists bent on attacking America, and wrestling with the same fundamental questions of international and domestic law as his predecessor. Confounding the political, journalistic and academic elites who trusted Mr Obama to be the anti-Bush, the current president has greatly expanded the use of unmanned drones to track and kill terror suspects and militants (and the occasional hapless bystander) in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan.

    He has shelved his promise to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, and (until this week) fought to keep secret legal memos asserting the right of administration officials—so long as they are high-ranking and “informed”—to kill American citizens overseas who are deemed to be leaders of al-Qaeda or an affiliate, and involved in active plots to attack American targets.

    Behind all these mission lie two hard questions left answered by Mr Bush’s battle-cry of 2001: whether America can lay claim to the legal powers of a nation waging war, and whether it is wiser, more just and more useful to kill or capture militants and terrorists bent on causing the country harm. Both those questions were on stark display on January 7th at the Senate Intelligence Committee’s confirmation hearing for John Brennan, Mr Obama’s pick to the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr Brennan, being a 25-year CIA veteran who has wielded vast influence while serving as the president’s chief counter-terrorism aide in the White House for the past four years, mounted a sharp and mostly convincing defence of current policies, with their blend of killing by missiles from the sky and painstaking attempts to detain and interrogate living suspects while hewing to the rule of law.

    Senators, being senators, did their level best to obscure the important questions of lilfe, death and justice at issue—instead bombarding the would-be CIA chief with a blizzard of portentous, self-important and partisan-tinged advice and complaints. Absurdly, Mr Brennan—a casting agent’s idea of a spy boss, with his hunched shoulders, pugilist’s jaw and slightly menacing good manners—found himself under alternate attack from Democrats and Republicans for being at once too squeamish about legal niceties, and at the same time too Bush-like in his enthusiasm for drone-strikes and his previous statements about the usefulness of some information collected through “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

    Thus the rising Republican star, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, seemed impatient with Mr Brennan for suggesting that terror suspects should or usefully could be brought to American soil for interrogation under American law. Mr Brennan found himself insisting that federal investigators could obtain intelligence from suspects even while granting them their rights, and explaining to an incredulous Mr Rubio that America could not order Tunisia to lock up a suspect linked to the Benghazi killings in Libya, when there was no evidence that Tunisian laws had been broken.

    Yet at the same time Democrats pressed Mr Brennan hard on his boss’s lack of transparency over the legal basis for drone strikes, following the leaking, a few days’ earlier, of a memo setting out the legal basis for such extrajudicial killings—a leak that finally prompted Obama officials to send the documents to the committee.

    Almost despite the best efforts of the senators, the hearing saw the beginning of a long-overdue argument about the impact on global opinion of hundreds of death-dealing American drones circling far-off skies, and the need for America to demonstrate a much clearer legal basis for those strikes. Before the hearings, a former commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, had told reporters that he was scared by the resentment provoked by drone strikes, and worried that the anger they stirred up was “much greater than the average American appreciates.”

    Yet some senators seemed most concerned about the idea that American drones being used to kill American citizens, as in a 2011 strike in Yemen against a suspected terror leader, the American-born Anwar al-Awlaki. The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, expressed indignation on the same day as the Brennan hearing that his committee would not be sent papers explaining the killing saying: “Taking the life of an American citizen is a tremendous power and one that should not go unchecked.”

    In response to questions from Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee, Mr Brennan disagreed with the suggestion that it was better to kill terrorists with a drone than for the CIA to detain them. “I never believe it’s better to kill a terrorist than to detain him,” Mr Brennan said.

    Mr Brennan—who is expected to be approved by the Senate—laid out a vision of a CIA that had to address unanswered questions around drone strikes and the collection of intelligence. Drone strikes were not used to punish terrorists but as a last resort to save lives, he insisted, amid brief protests that at one point shut down his hearing. A Brennan-led CIA is likely to try to move away from the business of running a global paramilitary air force as well as detention sites, with the Pentagon taking over many of those duties. Mr Brennan described a dangerous world which meant that America needed good intelligence and analysis more than ever. He seemed eager to steer the CIA back to that traditional role.

    But as Mr Obama’s second-term national team takes shape, the same dilemma will confront them as faced Mr Bush all those years ago: is the country made safer when enemies are killed, or when they are taken alive? And can either course be taken while preserving the primacy of law that makes America America? Though Mr Brennan at times seemed glib in his insistence that drones and other tools of war can achieve surgical precision, he engaged with that dilemma at his confirmation hearing. That, at least, gives grounds for hope.

    Readers’ comments

    The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

    Reluctant Polluter 56 mins ago

    What a predictable mess is this article! Full of pointless, no, just silly stereotypes like “a cowboy bent on a lynching”; and pointless, clumsy pseudo questions like “whether it is wiser, more just and more useful to kill or capture militants and terrorists bent on causing the country harm.”
    .
    Is it wiser than what? Than treat them as victims of unjust, bad, capitalist, dominated by patriarchal white males society, and undertake yet another affirmative action magnanimously leaving them to kill, bless their hearts?
    .
    War which is not fought to the hilt is a lost war.

    SamuelPrime Feb 9th, 06:56

    These terrorists that we go after, even if they are American citizens, are no different than criminal citizens who hold people hostage at US schools, malls, banks, restaurants, etc, at gun point – and invariably these criminals get killed by law enforcement to protect the innocents involved. The logic in these are one and the same.

    Dr.Bubba Feb 9th, 04:02

    What evidence do we have that “[a] Brennan-led CIA is likely to try to move away from the business of running a global paramilitary air force as well as detention sites, with the Pentagon taking over many of those duties.”? Shall we just take his word for it as he auditions for the part? What levers does the public hold to keep mr. Brennan to such a vision?
    A confirmation hearing presents our Senate with a rare letter to get what it is supposed to get by law (i.e. access to at least the legal rationale on which the CIA is operating. Until senator Wyden’s questions are satisfied in full, neither mr. Brennan nor anyone else should be confirmed as Director/CIA. If our CIA prefers to operate outside the law, let it do so without claiming to act in our name.

    bampbs Feb 9th, 02:20

    Given that we must fight our sworn mortal enemies, better a way that kills civilians in tens than in tens of thousands.

    William Keller Feb 9th, 01:54

    Maybe the republican war against the Federal government has left us unable to operate under the rule of law beyond our NRA desired limit. Their success in extending the life of the gulag at Gitmo for the pleasure of republican senators and their persistent desire to continue a land war in Southern Asia and expand it to Iran on behalf of Israel and its agent, AIPAC, have left the President with drone warfare as the only ethical means to remove a malignancy that is destroying civilization from Timbuktu to the Kashmir while disassembling a military/industrial infrastructure and worldwide archipelago that will bankrupt us as effectively as it has done other powers throughout history.

    Yes we are in a conundrum of our own making but working it out at the cost of our souls.

    Karen Ronk Feb 9th, 01:31

    Does anybody really know the criteria for these drone killings? Is there any requirement that a target has actually already committed terrorism or is it just that they might be involved with a terrorist group? I have had a difficult time finding my moral bearings on this issue but I have begun to feel that we cannot justify killing people in such an arbitrary fashion. I am not at all squeamish about punishing those we know through facts and investigation are guilty, but is that what we are doing here?

    From what I have seen based on the memo NBC obtained:

    Obama Administration lawyers say killing an American would be lawful if an “informed, high-level official” determined three things:
    1.That the target is a ranking Al-Qaeda figure.
    2.That he or she poses “an imminent threat of violent attack” against America.
    3.That capture is not “feasible.”

    But the administration then goes on to basically say they can ignore any of those 3 rules if they feel like it. Read the memo for yourself and decide.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

    ggsanketell Feb 8th, 23:34

    Consider a hypothetical (possibly) situation. President Assad of Syria orders the assassination of Syrian dissidents meeting in France, say, who are plotting the overthrow of his regime. Would this be legal under current US doctrine?

    zappa3.1416 Feb 8th, 22:40

    Drones are not the real issue. The real issue is that conflict has shapeshifted since the traditional laws of war were developed and codified, and while those remain necessary, they are no longer sufficient. Too many situations – the globally traveling terrorist who is operating as part of a non-state based authority, cyberconflict, unrestricted warfare as suggested by some Chinese strategists, increasingly mixed combat/police/espionage environments (each with different rules and norms of behavior) – go beyond the assumptions upon which traditional legal and ethical structures are based. To name only a few: the idea that there are clear demarcations between combatants and non-combatants is questionable; the state-based legal structure is increasingly obsolete; and assumptions that combat is both obvious (as a kinetic attack is) and geographically bounded . . . all of these are increasingly obsolete. It is not that one should ignore traditional norms and laws of war, but the stubborn refusal to understand how the world has changed undermines the naive critiques of American behavior. It is not that a debate is inappropriate; it is that a debate based on obsolete and anachronistic assumptions is not helpful. It would not have been useful (to the British) if, sitting around after Lexington and Concord, they had concluded they were still fighting Agincourt, and thus refused to recognize that the colonist guerrilla war existed.

    Galaicus2010 Feb 8th, 22:13

    I suspect this “activity” will be declared in violation of the Geneva convention as soon as every other country has access to it. It’s appalling that Obama has approved this @#$$%%^^ #$%^&* (add an adjective and a noun here). Having a guy, pretty much playing a video game, kill another person is revolting.

    sadoshah Feb 8th, 21:26

    Once upon a time I relish the American Democratic foreign policy being a policeman of the world; not so any more.They are laying a precedent to a more dangerous world for our generations to come.Not only Drones,but the whole policies are lurking to a disastrous turn and the paths where there will be no return.Other nations will make drones, stealth missiles the likes of WOMS and really create hell of a world.It is already showing or laying the grounds for third world war.I got a feeling the west would say so be it.Hallellua!

    MarkDowe Feb 8th, 21:22

    The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”
    .
    Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.
    .
    The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?
    .
    There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.
    .
    In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.
    .
    Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.
    .
    Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.
    .
    American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.
    .
    Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    Could you please forward that piece to the New York Times and Washington Post? For months they carried front page stories about enhanced interrogation techniques performed on a handful of people as though everyone involved should be prosecuted for war crimes. Whether or not you agreed with those techniques, they were not even in the same universe as the serial murder that is occurring in this administration. The silence from those who were so sanctimonious is deplorable.

    see reply to 19:31 post re legal status of US citizens who are enemy combatants.
    Your points are reasonable. However, there is clearly an armed conflict in progress when there are 75,000 US troops deployed. The US Congress has authorized funding. A war is in progress & attacks are being made by forces based in Pakistan border areas. This is a context where US law & Geneva Conventions are applicable without ambiguity. Use of aerial bombardment that makes no distinction between combatants & non-combatants is authorized to bomb a bridge, a port, a factory, etc. Under these circumstances drones are preferable to alternatives that entail many more deaths. Yemen is somewhat different.

    Expand 3 more replies

    Ric L. Shorten Feb 8th, 21:15

    America has lost its moral code. The gloves are off…take no prisoners. The world holds its leaders in disgust and loathing. Its people choose NOT to reign in its military and now share this contempt and horror. ONLY FINANCIAL collapse will end this reign of terror on the world. THIS country is BANKRUPT! BUT the other worldly KINGS and Princes of nation states who depend on this ‘toilet paper world currency’ will keep up this charade as long as possible.
    To the other 99% move all your funds to the Credit Union system…the banks will fail. Buy farmland before the corporation own all the best…block by block…neighbourhood by neighbourhood form co-ops to provide your basic needs to survive the coming storm. Together we will rebuild a fair and just society.

    Jinraj Feb 8th, 20:56

    I hope the so called “international community” will accept that the other countries will have the same right to kill their own suspects (using drones) trying to overthrow their own Governments such as China, India, and even Syria (why not?)??? Or when it comes to that situation the West will suddenly remember international law!!! West will call it as a violation of international law and war crime. If American President can call killing its own as legal then so can Assad of Syria? Unless of course the international community has double standards – one for West and one for the rest – JINRAJ JOSHIPURA

    roblimo Feb 8th, 20:40

    If you declare war on my country I will take you at your word and treat you as an enemy combatant. Somali citizen, American citizen, Pakistani citizen; it’s all the same to me.
    Given a choice between sending a sweaty American soldier out to kill our enemies in nasty parts of the world where he is sure to get dysentery or at least crotch rot, and sending drones controlled by Americans sitting safely in air conditioned trailers hundreds of miles away, I’ll choose the drones every time.
    I’ve been the sweaty American soldier far from home, and I still shiver at some of what I went through. I suspect that about 100% of military veterans agree with me.
    And civilian casualties: We’re dealing with enemies who use human shields, often including their own families. That’s horrible. But it’s their choice, and as long as they do it there will be civilian casualties, but not as many as THEY cause by intentionally killing civilians in order to terrorize us (although it doesn’t; it just makes us angry).

    I’d say most U.S. people have given up on getting Muslim-dominated theocracies or terror bands to like us. I’ve traveled to several middle east countries and heard horrible lies about the U.S. and Israel spouted as truth. Being a realist, I accept the fact that a lot of these people believe nonsense about us and are going to hate us no matter what we do.

    Since that seems to be the case, we might as well make sure they fear us and hesitate to attack us due to fear of retaliation.

    Or do you have a magic plan to make everybody love the United States of America? If you do, I’d love to hear it and will be sure to pass it on to my Congressman.

    agwisreal Feb 8th, 19:36

    “…is the country made safer when enemies are killed, or when they are taken alive?” As if we normally have both options. We don’t, and for the same reason that, in a conventional shooting war, it sometimes happens that we kill enemy combatants rather than taking them prisoner: they fight back and won’t give up.

    War from the sky offers fewer opportunities (none, really) for taking prisoners. When it is not possible to have boots on the ground, the options narrow to two: kill, or be killed. Not that those hit by drones can kill any of us then and there, but they’re working on it, they’ve brought it off before, and if not stopped, they’ll bring it off again.

    john bhatia Feb 8th, 19:35

    Drones are killings many times more civilians than terrorists and many many times less than terrorists have killed but 75% or more Americans approve it and 100% elected law makers like it. Of course Obama love it. But so far it has killed only Muslims around the globe, and that too Americans like it. But if other nations including terrorists will get this technology and start killings their enemies; similarly America is killing on bare perception, what will happens to the civilized world? Is this drones killings is better than rendition, torturing and killings without fair justice? Does America got this license from the U.N.Human rights Commission, or does not need?

    Perhaps you could provide some reliable source for your statement that the drone attacks have killed “many more civilians than terrorists have killed.” That statement is absurd on its face. I suspect that at least 75% of American’s are not against surgical drone strikes that target terrorists, even when some innocent civilians are injured or killed. Regrettable, but when you use civilians, dress in civilian garb, hide in civilian areas, surprise!, civilians will be harmed. We do everything practically possible to avoid injuring civilians which is much more than the policy of deliberately killing civilians to enhance the terror in terrorist.

    Gnostic Liberal Feb 8th, 19:31

    There seems to be a lack of continuity in the article. Is the hoopla about the targeted killing of American citizens (by any means), the use of UAVs, or the use of UAVs by a nonmilitary organization?
    The targeted killings of American citizens seem to go completely against the spirit and the explicit language of due process stated and implied in the 5th and 14th amendments: “..deprive LIFE, liberty,…”
    UAVs themselves are no more deadly for a civilian population than any other vehicle that drops bombs or fires rockets and missiles. They are just more efficient and cost effective. The fact that the enemy is cowardly enough to hide amongst civilians has created a need for hyper-accurate weapon systems like those found, not only on UAVs, but on many military aircraft. With no surprise people insist on labeling “evil” a weapon rather than discussing the nature and circumstances when and why that weapon is used. This is an insurgent conflict. There are no uniformed rifleman lines. The bad guys who continually attack civilian targets around the world use their neighbors for concealment. What other options are there?

    The Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens who have taken up arms against the US are enemy combatants that are not entitled to Constitutional protections. Some US citizens joined the German army in both WW1 & WW2. So the issue is whether a planner is a combatant (the citizen issue having been resolved). There is a court case in progress brought by Alawi’s father that will resolve that. So far, I believe, the answer is that a planner is a combatant. Appeals pending.

    Public Dude Feb 8th, 17:15

    What’s the difference between a declared and an undeclared war? Is a declared war fairer than an undeclared war simply because a majority in Congress said “Aye” to the former? If Americans fighting on the side of an enemy in a declared war are fair target in a battle, why not those who side with terrorists in an undeclared war? Congress may claim that the Constitution gives it the authority to declare war. But the Jihadists have declared such a war against America and won’t care for Congressional declaration or lack of it. The President is tasked with keeping Americans safe, not members of Congress, who will complain regardless of what approach the President takes.

    The senators expressing horror at the drone killings had no problem declaring a needless war on Iraq when Iraq was not threatening the US at all. On the other hand, the drones are killing those who swear to do just that – kill innocent Americans. And countries where the Jihadists lurk are either unwilling (Pakistan) or unable (Somalia, Yemen, Mali) to control them.

    Bush had warned that America would take the war to the terrorists. He was right. Let a thousand drones fly!

    The declared war is when there is enough time for all to stay in the houses as there is enough time given . Read on the Fall and Rise Of The Third Reich By William Shyere . He has spoken on the WW when Germany was very much involved with the atrocities of Hitler . Hitler had one notion , “Every Clerk is a Jew and every Jew is a clerk”. Tha idea got him very upset and he went to war. This was a known fact as UK and USA prepared to counter attack and save their populace lives . The new IT is the new war. A button and you have drones. lots of bombs with pins , nails, gases that explode in your vicinity and no one is aware. 9/11 was the attack of unknown on the USA ( Of course this was know but ignored) That is the difference . The new IT is that speaks little and does more damage I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

    4horseman Feb 8th, 17:15

    I agree. However war itself involves considerable compartmentalization, so it’s not self-evident that contamination occurs. Chaplains serve in the military & continue to believe “thou shalt not kill”. The institution of the Church, it’s teachings & cannon law seem unaffected. The possibility of war-time practices degrading the civil legal system is a significant concern. But it is far from inevitable.

    Leiesoldat Feb 8th, 16:46

    It’s war. People die. Get over it. The lot of you are a bunch of hypocrites. You don’t want to see American troops die by the truckload, but you also don’t want to see citizens die because they were in the line of fire. Also you don’t want to be kidnapped abroad because every extremist Islamist in the East wants to see Americans die because they are infidels according to the Qur’an. You can pick 2, but you can’t have all 3.

    A war without end that encompasses the entire world? That’s not war, that’s life. If you want to live a life where one man decides whether you live or die without query, oversight, or appeal, then you wish to live in a totalitarian state.
    I wish to live in America, where the fourth and fifth amendment protect me from such tyranny. And I will not let some terrorist (who’s less of a risk to me and other Americans than a lightning strike) scare me into taking a hacksaw to the constitution that so many people died to defend.
    You call us hypocrites, but you sir are a coward who would gladly slit liberty’s throat for the illusion of protection from the bogeyman.

    Not the entire world, just countries that are either unable or unwilling to police their population in a meaningful way to prevent them from exporting their jihad to civilized nations.

    The Constitutional protections you refer to do not apply to foreign nationals, especially those fighting the US nor does it apply to US Citizens who have turned traitor & are actively in league with enemy combatants killing other US citizens.
    If targets were truly indiscriminately chosen then I may agree with you but there is no evidence that this is the case.

    Collapse replies

    Well first one could just use logic to know they the US Constitution doesn’t reach into giving protection to foreign nationals outside of the US or traitors to the US but if that isn’t good enough there is plenty of case law interpreting the same of the Constitution & being a common law country case law = what the Constitution says.

    About Lexington’s notebook

CNN Explains: U.S. drones

By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 3:43 PM EST, Fri February 8, 2013
Watch this video

CNN Explains: Drones

(CNN) — The secret U.S. drone campaign against al Qaeda and its allies has transformed the nature of modern warfare, becoming a key weapon in the U.S. arsenal against suspected terrorists. Advocates see drones as an effective tool in the fight against extremists. Opponents worry about civilian casualties and loose oversight.

Here are some key facts about the U.S. drone program:

How does the U.S. use drones against al Qaeda?

Drones are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. They are used for surveillance and targeted killings, allowing the United States to carry out certain missions without risking the lives of military personnel.

There are numerous types. The MQ-1B Predator is used for what the military calls “medium-altitude, long endurance” missions, offering intelligence gathering as well as “munitions capability.” The MQ-9 Reaper is used primarily “in a hunter/killer role,” and secondarily for intelligence, the military says. It is designed to carry out the “kill chain (find, fix, track, target, execute, and assess) against high value, fleeting, and time sensitive targets.”

FBI used drones in hostage rescue

Targeting American terrorists overseas

Man’s son and grandson killed by drones

Filmmaker: ‘Nova: Rise of the Drones’

Drones are remotely controlled and include visual sensors that allow those operating them to focus in on targets. They carry various types of weapons. The MQ-9 can employ four laser-guided Hellfire missiles.

Outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta has called drones “very effective” in Pakistan. “Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership,” he said in 2009.

A Justice Department memo, given to select members of Congress last year, says the U.S. government can use lethal force against American citizens overseas who are operational leaders of al Qaeda or its affiliates. The document provides insights into the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes.

U.S. drones: Join the debate on Facebook

The mechanics of the drones have evolved over the years. In early 2003, CNN reported that nearly half the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of RQ-1 Predators were shot down or crashed, according to Air Force officials and military records.

Until 2004, drones were used primarily for surveillance in Pakistan. But that year, the CIA fired the first missile from a drone at a terrorist target in Waziristan.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden warned his associates about drone strikes.

The CIA flew the stealthy UAV RQ-170 over bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan to monitor it in advance of the raid that killed him, according to robotics warfare expert Peter Singer.

The United States has 8,000 drones. The U.S. Army has a robust plan for using them more and more in the future.

U.S. officials recently signed a deal with Niger to house surveillance drones in that country to keep tabs on Islamic militants in the region.

Opinion: Bring drones out of the shadows

How many drone strikes has the U.S. carried out?

The New America Foundation estimates, based on news reports, that the U.S. government has carried out 349 “CIA drone strikes” in Pakistan and 61 in Yemen. The foundation is a Washington-based, non-partisan think tank.

The United States does not release figures on the number of strikes. President Obama surprised many people in January 2012 by officially acknowledging that the attacks even exist.

In the midst of a Google + video chat, he said “a lot of these strikes” have been in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, along the border with Afghanistan, where many members of al Qaeda and the Taliban are known to be. “For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military actions than the one we’re already engaging in,” the president said.

Who has been killed by drone strikes?

The New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan, between 1,953 and 3,279 people have been killed since 2004 — and that between 18% and 23% of them were not militants. The “non-militant casualty rate” was down to about 10% in 2012, the group says.

In Yemen, the group estimates, between 646 and 928 people have been killed in a combination of drone strikes and airstrikes, and that 623 to 860 of those killed were militants.

Only about 2% of those killed have been high-level targets, the group said.

A study by two prestigious U.S. universities argued that the “dominant narrative” that drones are “surgically precise and effective” is false.

Demonstrators burn a U.S. flag during a protest in Multan on January 3, 2013, against drone attacks in Pakistan\'s tribal areas.
Demonstrators burn a U.S. flag during a protest in Multan on January 3, 2013, against drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The strikes have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, traumatized innocent people and largely been ineffective, according to the study by the law schools of Stanford and New York University.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization, estimates that 363 “CIA drone strikes” in Pakistan have killed between 2,634 and 3,468 people — including 473 to 893 civilians.

In Yemen, the group estimates, the United States may have carried out more than 100 drone strikes. Together with other U.S. operations, anywhere between 374 and 1,112 people, of whom 72 to 178 were civilians, were killed, the group estimates.

Obama told CNN that a target must meet “very tight and very strict standards,” and Brennan said that in “exceedingly rare” cases, civilians have been “accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes.”

U.S. drones: Join the debate on Twitter

Do other countries use drones?

As CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen puts it, a decade ago the United States “had a virtual monopoly on drones. Not anymore.”

More than 70 countries now have some type of drone — although only a few possess armed drones, according to The New American Foundation.

Iran has claimed to have an armed drone of its own.

China unveiled 25 drone models in 2010, some of which were outfitted to fire missiles.

“Only the United States, United Kingdom and Israel are known to have launched drone strikes against their adversaries, although other members of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, such as Australia, have ‘borrowed’ drones from Israel for use in the war there,” Bergen wrote in October.

For many years, Israel led the world in developing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle systems (UAS), according to the Congressional Research Service.

A 2011 study by Aerospace America found 680 UAS programs worldwide.

An exclusive look into Israel’s drones

How else are drones used?

The Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya plans to use a drone to monitor wildlife and deter poachers.
The Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya plans to use a drone to monitor wildlife and deter poachers.

Drones are a rapidly growing form of technology, used for numerous purposes outside the military.

Some law enforcement agencies are using them. Days ago, the FBI used surveillance drones to monitor a hostage standoff involving a 5-year-old boy in Alabama.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration uses drones to study weather systems and ecosystems.

The Federal Aviation Administration has announced progress in helping integrate UAS into the U.S. aerospace system.

And numerous private companies have sprung up in the last few years to make small remote-controlled mini-aircraft moutned with cameras available for sale.

As CNN Money explains, “Journalists and sports photographers use them in lieu of expensive helicopters. Real estate agents employ them for aerial photos and video. Wildlife researchers and search-and-rescue outfits are using them or studying the potential. Even the utility industry is interested in having them hunt for downed power lines after a storm.”

  • 103 comments

Leave a message…
  • J. Honak • 2 days ago

    “CNN Explains” kind of arrogant dont you think? I remember when news just reported the facts.

  • 24
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • joshsn • 2 days ago

    Thanks for glossing over the whole “assassination” angle. It wouldn’t do to question our Dear Leaders with Constitutional questions about who they can kill, and why.

    All Power To (Insert Current Oval Office Occupant Here)!

  • 31 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Bugs Weta joshsn • 2 days ago

      That Nobel Peace prize becomes a bigger joke every day.

    • 31 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Alex Hissong joshsn • 2 days ago

      There is no “assassination angle” because we are in a recognized armed conflict with Al Qaeda. Assassination requires targeted killing for only political or monetary motives. I’m not saying I agree with the policy but to pursue an “assassination angle” would be bad journalism.

    • 8 3
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      • Martyr Alex Hissong • 2 days ago

        When CHINA kills a dissident with a drone on U.S. soil will you understand?

        Obama and his minions have no clue what CAN OF WORMS they’ve opened.

        Rules from the released document.

        Subject must be seen as a danger (Any country can claim that)
        Attacks can happen in neutral countries (That makes U.S. soil a legit target)

        So how can we complain if another country starts using drones here?

        This smacks of little to no forward thinking… As if the U.S. will be the only power to ever field hi-tech drones…

        So the new rule is unless you change it…. Everyone and Everywhere is fair game.

        Before you go blah blah blah

        Think about it for a minute and look at the ground rules it sets for other countries.

      • 18 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
        • mroooo Martyr • a day ago

          When China kills a dissident on US soil with a drone it’s WW3. It’s a silly comparison.

          I understand your empathy but it’s naive. It’s about power, capability and presence. The war on terrorism doesn’t take place inside of any specific nation, it takes place inside of a region. America isn’t acting alone in any situations in the Middle East except Afghanistan.

          Not saying I agree with any of what’s happening or that you’re wrong about promoting drones being a horrible idea, because you’re not. But your analogy is off.

        • 4
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
          • Martyr mroooo • a day ago

            WW3 by what right is what I’m asking?

            If the PLO, Israel, or ANY country NOT just with drones blows up a dissident… in the U.S. what is our recourse? We can’t go to the world courts and ask for sanctions as we’ve said the rule of law is out the window.

            And if you’re really saying we’re going to war with every country that pulls the same crap we do, I find that very unlikely.

            It’s kinda like a bully crying when it happens to them… as drones are the current bully and are quickly becoming a weapon of terror.

            “Double tap” is in no doubt a war crime as it assumes that the medics and people who run to help people caught in a drone strike are all terrorists. What’s worse is double tap is the preferred tactic of the PLO and other terror organizations.

            The truth is we are full of shti and should of at least informed Pakistan seconds before we crossed the border after bin-laden, but no the U.S. is above the law?

            This is insane and my analogy is as right now as it was years ago.

            Might Does Not Make Right

            As sooner or later someone calls you on it….

          • 8 2
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • Dom Ferrante mroooo • 18 hours ago

            The war on terrorism is a joke. Terrorism is an ideology, and as such, will never go away. It’s a “war” that will forever give our government power to use “active war-time” policies against other countries and it’s own people.

            This “war” has no clear goals, no means of metrics and no way to ever end.

          • 3
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
            • Dr_Manic Dom Ferrante • 15 hours ago

              Terrorism is not an ideology, but rather, a strategy. That is, terrorism is not a philosophy, it is a means to accomplish and end.

              Christianity, Islam, capitalism, socialism, etc. are ideologies.

              To put this in perspective: The only successful use of terrorism was in convincing the British to allow the forming of Israel.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
        • CrunchN’Munch Martyr • 10 hours ago

          You’re right. The states would have no reason to complain if other countries were to send drones on US soil. We’d be hypocrites.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
      • joshsn Alex Hissong • 21 hours ago

        I appreciate your attempt to produce a coherent and logical counter-argument. Let’s discuss the flaws in that argument.

        We are in a conflict with al-Qaeda, to be sure, but who is in al-Qaeda? This is not the Third Reich or the Soviets. There is no org chart, uniforms, or ranks. Who is in al-Qaeda? Apparently, anyone we can link to being in al-Qaeda. Where is the evidence for those linkages? It is simply repeated by the “journalists,” ad nauseum. I am less than six degrees from Kevin Bacon, and he is, undoubtedly, less than six degrees from Ayman al-Zawahiri. So, the people we are assassinating probably have NO ACTUAL CONNECTION to the 3 or 4 hundred people which, back in 2001, made up the group known as al-Qaeda, except a shared desire to, in words they might use, drive out the western imperialist infidels. Driving people out of one’s homeland is a major factor in all of this activity, and, according to Dr. Pape, the number one factor behind the logic of suicide terrorists.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • Kyle Alex Hissong • a day ago

        Tough legal justification. Under international law, terrorists are actually considered civilians and killing them is only legal if they are IN THE ACT of committing an attack. It’s an outdated law, and the White House takes full advantage of blaming everyone but itself.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • GregJustice joshsn • 19 hours ago

      While Bush was President, liberals and many Democrats opposed drone strikes that were produced through Executive action and now, with Obama in the White House, they are fine with it. Apparently, a drone with a “D” on it is a good drone and a drone with an “R” on it is a bad drone… I guess we should call this policy “laser-guided liberalism”. It definitely keeps suspected terrorists from showing up in American courts. Kind of like not closing Guantanamo…

    • 2 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • eviltaxpayer • 2 days ago

    Cnn explains?
    What the hell is THAT?
    cnn is supposed to be journalism, not defining issues for the media messiah-
    Talk about naked bias.Geesh they dont even bother to try to hide there slanted bias anymore!

  • 14
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • FAHQOBAMA • a day ago

    There are two types of drones Obama employs.

    Armed and unarmed

    Armed = unmanned aerial vehicles used for assassinations and targeted killings
    Unarmed = his voter base. uninformed, anti-gun, big government collectivists used to assassinate the Constitution

  • 16 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • J. Honak • 2 days ago

    Our leaders work for the corporations. CNN is one of those corporations. All HAIL our corporate overlords. It sucks.

  • 9
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • nsurround • 2 days ago

    We are unleashing hell on ourselves with these things. Do you think our govt agencies or other countries will not be using these on their own citizens. Our military has become basically a corporation who now hire its recruits and is becoming only beholden to its share holders – the military industrial complex. Eisenhower had it right, we are going down the wrong path here. Who is really in control of this?

  • 13 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Bobj • 2 days ago

    Obama is killing American citizens overseas with drone strikes. This is a criminal act! Its amazing to me that in the mind of most liberals W should have been impeached for “enhanced interrogation” but its okay for Obama to simply blow people up without trial. Wow.

  • 14 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Matt in KY • 2 days ago

    The more you talk about drones, the more I want one. Speaking of Orwell, drones could have the border on lockdown.

  • 6
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • J. Honak Matt in KY • 2 days ago

      Yes, Drones could have the border on lockdown. But, the government wants illegal immigration to continue. It is good for the corporations bottom line. Walmart sales would drop about 20% if illegal aliens were sent home.

    • 4 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • disqus_PkKEBI98Hu • 2 days ago

    Whether you call yourself a democrat, republican, or independent, the majority of us will agree that this is completely wrong. One of the few things we can agree on.160+ innocent children killed last year from these drones. Now Obama wants to target American citizens indiscriminately without due process anyone that the DOJ deems a “terrorist.” Even the Huffington Post, known for their love of Obama, firmly condemned these decisions by the Obama Administration with an article that critisized the use of drones.. And if the Huffpost says its wrong, then you better believe its wrong.

  • 12 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Qwash • a day ago

    “between 18% and 23% of them were not militants” also known as innocent men, women and children.

  • 5
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • FearFighter1 • a day ago

    Fellow Americans please look at the future…we all know a small minority of people create crime in our land but these drones will one day be a normal sight over America….this program will be regretted deeply…

  • 7 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • eviltaxpayer • a day ago

    The drones are being used in obamas war of cowards.
    No messy trails or nessasary explainations-
    Nope just point and click, obama thinks hes being smart but why does the mid-east hate us so much more now?
    Lookk at egypt where obama the arrogant praised the arab spring, now its an islamic armpit, and obama wants to give them f-15′s? Is he serios?
    obama is evil and an america hating POS-

  • 7 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • supersenior • 2 days ago

    Just what is so wrong with killing Al Qaeda operatives? I don’t care if they started off as Americans or not, if they are tracing with terrorists, they are terrorists themselves and have abdicated their rights as US citizens. Drones can get to hart to get areas, take out the enemy and we don’t loose any soldiers.

  • 5 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Martyr supersenior • 2 days ago

      When CHINA kills a dissident with a drone on U.S. soil will you understand?

      Obama and his minions have no clue what CAN OF WORMS they’ve opened.

      Rules from the released document.
      Subject must be seen as a danger (Any country can claim that)
      Attacks can happen in neutral countries (That makes U.S. soil a legit target)

      So how can we complain if another country starts using drones on us here?

      This smacks of little to no forward thinking… As if the U.S. will be the only power to ever field hi-tech drones…

      Before you go blah blah blah

      Think for a minute and look at the ground rules it sets for other countries.

      If you have a toy that kills… you get to violate all airspace rules and kill whoever you want with no accountability…

      UMmm we may want to think over how we are using drones… before one of those OH SO COOL overhead missile videos happens here.

      Just saying

    • 6 3
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Dewdle • 2 days ago

    You are so fixated on the airplane sized drones that surveill and reign death from above that you forget the small drones. The CIA and others now have micro-drones the size of moths or even smaller insects that can spy and/or achieve certain physical goals. Even us civilians can buy small commercial RC helicopters or Quadropters that are controlled by iPads and can be fitted with all manner of HD vid cameras or still photo units. Or dispatch payloads.

    Drones have utterly changed tactical warfare and espionage in a very short period of time.

  • 5 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Is not in the FBI • 2 days ago

    Every drone strike creates more terrorists who hate America. Think about it, if your home was destroyed and entire family killed by a missile in the sky, shot from a plane that is controlled 6000 miles away, wouldn’t you want revenge? The unintended consequences of the drone program is going to come back to haunt us.

  • 9 4
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • 2Termz Is not in the FBI • 14 hours ago

      Think about it, if two of your most heavily populated and largest buildings were destroyed by hijacked planes, wouldn’t you want revenge? I, for one, do. And there have been more and more terrorist attacks attempted and fulfilled in the years since. What happened to the outrage about Benghazi? Why not utilize drones to attack those responsible for it? Or should we keep using it as a point of political leverage rather than punishing those responsible?

    • 1 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Martyr • 2 days ago

    When CHINA kills a dissident with a drone on U.S. soil will you understand?

    Obama and his minions have no clue what CAN OF WORMS they’ve opened.

    Rules from the released document.

    Subject must be seen as a danger (Any country can claim that)
    Attacks can happen in neutral countries (That makes U.S. soil a legit target)

    So how can we complain if another country starts using drones here?

    This smacks of little to no forward thinking… As if the U.S. will be the only power to ever field hi-tech drones…

    So the new rule is unless you change it…. Everyone and Everywhere is fair game.

    Before you go blah blah blah

    Think about it for a minute and look at the ground rules it sets for other countries.

  • 6 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Carlos Ruiz Martyr • a day ago

      Won’t happen the rules are baised the anywhere rule applies only to none super powers. If we drone strike China it be the same reaction we would give them. Enough of your naive nonsense.

    • 3 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Tim_88 Martyr • a day ago

      Really – drones are easily shot down. They are slow moving and at a height easily reached by missiles. If the Pakistanis wanted to they could shoot them down – instead they support the program with intelligence but moan publically for domestic consumption.

    • 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • John Straka • 2 days ago

    No mention of the government considering ALL males of military age to be militants when killed in drone strikes?

  • 4 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • CNNidegaz • 2 days ago

    CNN explains drones. Okay.
    v. Make a continuous low humming sound.
    v. to talk in a persistently dull or monotonous tone
    n. one that lives on the labors of others
    n. drudge

    Experts.

  • 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • King_Barak_I • a day ago

    Where’s all the outrage Libbies? These drones have killed hundreds without a trial to include an American citizen or two……freakin hypocrites!!!!!

  • 3 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Guest • 2 days ago

    Drones are a Good Thing.

  • 5 4
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Elarson • 2 days ago

    To bad the NRA is more concerned about holding on to military grade weapons. We are losing/ lost our privacy at a sickenimg pace. Big brother indeed minus the grey jump suits.

  • 3 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Peach • 19 hours ago

    Ok so let me get this straight—Obama can send a drone out and basically kill whoever he “thinks” is involved in “terrorist” activities—–really? And why are people (Democrats) screaming bloody murder about THIS?????? Its Germany all over again.

  • 2 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • cjhickles • 15 hours ago

    I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
    Whatever it takes to eliminate these terrorist sand rats is fine by me.

  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Dr_Manic • 16 hours ago

    It appears that a lot of rightwingnuts choose to ignore reality.

    Preamble

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    Section 1 – Short Title

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
    Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

    (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Tim_88 • a day ago

    Rather a drone than a B52. If the Pakistanis did there job there would be no need for the drones there. The civilian deaths tend to be in houses where the terrorists are staying. That is unfortunate but we are at war.

  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Boon Tee Tan • a day ago

    Spying, spying, spying; surveillance, surveillance, surveillance; all in the name of security measure.
    Nothing to hide, nowhere to hide, everyone is as naked as everyone can be. What next? Soft X-ray machines everywhere. Why wear anything then?
    (ttm1943)

  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Tim Tom • 2 days ago

    There are a large number of factual errors in this report. I dont knwo what has been de-classified but drones were used in offensive manner prior to 2004

  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Kathy Smith • 2 days ago

    C-covering
    N-non
    N-news

  • 4 5
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • John Fryman • a day ago

    I’m less concerned with targeting terrorists & linked groups with drones than I am with this story…. Google it PLEASE:

    “Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?”

    World-renowned educator and human rights activist Jim Garrow says that the source, man regarded as “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” told him that President Obama is using a new litmus test for “determining who will stay and who must go” among top-ranked military leaders. That test is whether they will fire on US citizens or not. Garrow says that his source made the disclosure in order to “sound the alarm” over the administration’s plans.

    This is not about terrorism, this is about disarming the public! This channel 9 WHDT news interview with a civil rights hero is on youtube also…it’s about 20 minutes long & deeply troubling! I’ve been sharing this with people & trying to debunk this for better than a week now because it’s TOO IMPORTANT to dismiss out of hand!

  • 2 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Abdullah719 John Fryman • 18 hours ago

      If your government truly decides to attack you, no amount of pea shooters are going to stop high-tech offensive weaponry.

    • 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Librarising John Fryman • 16 hours ago

      You’re a paranoid freak. Wanna know why?

      That clip from WHDN Boston is a fake.

      There is no WHDN, or WHDT Boston. It’s WHDH, and it’s channel 7.

    • 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      • John Fryman Librarising • 16 hours ago

        What’s your source or sources?

      • 0 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
        • Librarising John Fryman • 16 hours ago

          Dude, just google WHDN Boston.

        • 2
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
          • John Fryman Librarising • 15 hours ago

            Wikipedia has this info on them, so I have no idea where you are getting your information:
            WHDT became the first digital television station in the United States following a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that the station could provide primary over-the-air service using only a digital TV signal. On June 1, 2001, the station conducted the first over-the-air broadcast using progressive HDTV format 720p/60 with custom-designed 24 mm frame-transfer cameras.

            WHDT established the legal precedent requiring local cable TV systems to carry the primary programming of all digital television stations in both high definition format and in standard definition analog format. It is the first television station to have its high definition and standard definition signal carried on local cable TV under the FCC’s digital “must-carry” rules.

            WHDT was the first broadcast partner of the Deutsche Welle world television service. The station produces high definition content forsyndication and for broadcast. Its programming includes: fashion and lifestyle, live evening news and weather, documentaries, indie films, classical music concerts, equestrian sports, automotive news and motorsport, aviation, fishing, cooking, travel and cultural shows. WHDT is one of six stations operated by WHDT World Television Service (DE), a business unit of Marksteiner AG.

            Digital translator stations, WHDT-CD Miami and WHDN-LD Boston are notable because they are the first and second digital translators to be authorized by the FCC. WHDT-CD has a longer history than its full-power cousin. On September 21, 1987, the station was first licensed as W25AL. In 1989, it was moved to Coral Springs as W55BO where it functioned as a translator for CBS station WCIX in Miami. Ownership of the station was transferred to Günter Marksteiner in 1996. The station continued to carry a full schedule of CBS programming until 1997 when it was relocated to North Miami, Florida and began digital translator operations for WHDT-DT in December 2001.

            In August 2010, WHDT made the claim of being the first high definition affiliate of the Retro Television Network. However, none of the network’s classic television programming is aired in HD or remastered from film masters for HD presentation, and only current day programming such as outdoors and automotive programming from RTV sister network Tuff TV on weekends actually airs in HD.

            On October 27, 2011, it was announced that WHDT would disaffiliate from RTV and would begin carrying programming from the Weather Nation television network effective the weekend of October 29.[1]

            On June 15, 2012, WHDT launched The Auto Channel Television Network (TACH-TV), a broadcast service dedicated to automobile enthusiasts.[2]
            The station maintains a fully high definition schedule outside of paid programming.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • John Fryman Librarising • 15 hours ago

            It looks like they are blocking my posts with links but I googled WHDN Boston & there is NOTHING about fake anything there, in fact wikipedia has their info up there, there’s a station index, and many links to stories on them….SOOOO, not sure where you’re getting your facts but it’s not google!

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
      • John Fryman Librarising • 15 hours ago

        Each area has different “call letters” my friend & you are confirming that they are a broadcast station right! Please stop before you lose even more credibility.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
  • Ali Cool • 2 days ago

    “Save American life” by killing Afghan, Pakistan,Iraq,Yemen,Somalia etc
    Supporting Syrian extremist.

    Yeaa we believe you!

  • 1 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Man_Up_Mittens • 2 days ago

    Another fine product from Ronco’s Popeil…

  • 1 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Kyle • a day ago

    In a world where militants don’t where uniforms and carry out specific attacks, drones are an ideal way to fight back. The problem is, we have created more terrorists than we have killed (esp in Yemen), the White House covers up civilian casualty numbers by counting all dead as enemy combatants, and the end result is a program that allows one man – Obama – to decide whether another man lives or dies. The targeted killing program in this country has destroyed lives and livelihoods of terrorists and civilians alike and will soon jeopardize the security of every American when drones take to the skies over our soil.

  • 1 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • ralph • a day ago

    cnn will say anything to carry the water for the bIack bassturd Ovomit and try to make it sound like it is good and legal…it isn’t plain and simple also if they think they can do it overseas…they think that they do this in this country also…

  • 1 6
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • yohi60 • a day ago

    Outlaw drones.

  • 0 3
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • cman yohi60 • a day ago

      Hmmm, not sure about that however I fully admit I am not well read on this matter. Isn’t it just another weapon and the question is more how and when to use it? Is the issue that its indiscriminate? If so that would apply to every bomb and cruise missile no? In fact wouldn’t the drone be less indiscriminate than a bomb or cruise missile?

    • 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      • yohi60 cman • a day ago

        I overstated…..but I am very concerned with loss of privacy, at least until the world evolves. It’s not possible in one lifetime, I know. But I also know human beings are not to be trusted with such devices. I see drones (and the satellites which make their control possible) as weapons to be used by soul-less leaders against their own populations.

        Einstein once mentioned something about man’s consciousness being in a race with his technology. Technology, he said, was winning.

        I’m not so worried for myself as I am for my children and grandchildren.

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
        • cman yohi60 • a day ago

          I understand your concern. There are all manner of tools to do evil, I suppose this one is more quiet in its stealthy specificity and detachment though. The question arises in the insidious nature of the lowest common denominator, do we need it if we are to stay ahead of others who would do us harm? I want enlightenment and peace and love but I also understand that there are people who delight in killing. I suppose we should have very heavy and transparent oversight but ultimately we may be spinning towards giving the thugs the means to truly control Evonne, Orwell envisioned a television watching you, can you imagine what he would think of today’s society!!

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
          • yohi60 cman • a day ago

            Orwell would have realized his greatest fears.

            I admit forthrightly that I have no solutions to the “thuggery” problem, but the question you ask bears on torture leading to a good and just result. Is our violence worth the cost of attempting to reach a goal that slips further away with each ignoble act.

            In the end, I feel I have to depend on faith in evolution.

            It’s too late for me to continue this conversation much longer tonight. But I’m glad I bumped into you, and I look forward to future discussions.

          • 1
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
            • cman yohi60 • a day ago

              I don’t want the torture of even a horrible person nor believe that it can lead to good. I do believe that we have to defend ourselves against wonton cruelty and I am not sure the use of drones is accomplishing that. You ask a great question:

              Is our violence worth the cost of attempting to reach a goal that slips further away with each ignoble act.

              violence for its own sake is pure evil, so is accepting the death of an innocent child as ‘collateral’ to getting the person who would do you harm, for me this is unacceptable.

              I am unsure about this, can drones be used in some situations without unacceptable unintended consequences, I don’t know.

            • 1
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
  • Syd Chaden • a day ago

    If the US is under attack by a world-wide Islamic movement dedicated to the death of infidels and the imposition of Islam, then the US is threatened, and the drone attacks are justified. The fact that US citizens may be involved is not really an issue, since a US citizen who joins an enemy in attacking the US forfeits US citizenship and attendant rights. But, if the US is being attacked by a “tiny minority” of “the religion of love”, then the attacks cannot be justified, because they cannot possibly endanger the US. And so, which of those two scenarios applies? Obama says that the terrorists are a “tiny minority of Islamic extremists”, and that Islam is “the religion of love”. If he believes what he says, then the drone attacks can’t be warranted. Even if Obama’s statements aren’t, the facts are clear. Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims have been killing each other for centuries, because each considers the other to be infidels, and Islam calls for death to infidels. Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Mali, Libya and Syria, to name a few of the countries, to establish their brand of Islam and to kill infidels. Muslims in virtually every Muslim country celebrate suicide bombers, extol them as martyrs, and happily shout “Allah Akbar”. And so, the facts are clear, and the use of drones would be clearly justified, if the President would speak the truth.

  • 0 2
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • eQuibbly • 3 hours ago

    Whether drones are effective or not, the question remains: Does the end justify the means?

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • zzbbe • 11 hours ago

    War is humanity greatest evil and without justice. It’s He!! ordained by the devil and sanctioned by God.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • nc_mike • 13 hours ago

    Why is it so difficult for many to comprehend the very basics? When at war with a country, does the Commander in Chief ask for permission who to kill of the enemy? No! With terrorists, there is no country, but we are at war nevertheless. What? People would rather we invade the harboring nations with hundreds of thousands of troops – our kids, and kill exponentially more civilians and out own kids in the process? Phulleze, drop the arm chair indignation and get real.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • WAKEUP48 • 13 hours ago

    This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar
    Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as
    “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments
    and murdering the dictators and their supporters.

    Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders
    his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long
    before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list?

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Mitch Labuda • 20 hours ago

    The U.S. Justice Department granted permission to use the drones around the world, to kill people, and when the drones kill people, people get upset and take up arms and the cycle repeats. And the countries, we support and fly drones over, object to the drones, but we stop using them, in a never ending global war over our policies.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Stiggy • a day ago

    this article missed one very important line… US drones have also become the new national bird of Pakistan!!

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Stiggy • a day ago

    this article missed one very important line… US drones have also become the new national bird of Pakistan!!

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Ryan • a day ago

    U.S. citizens who are associated with terrorist groups, forfeit U.S. citizenship. In other words, They automatically become terrorists!.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›

John Brennan’s killer drones are new symbol of America in the world

  •
Barack Obama has become the drone presidentDavid Horsey / Los Angeles Times (February 7, 2013)

Related photos »

By David HorseyFebruary 8, 2013, 5:00 a.m.

It is certainly not what he hoped or intended, but one of President Obama’s biggest legacies in foreign affairs may prove to be the proliferation of drones as tools of war, assassination and terror.

Obama is not the first to use drones to strike enemy targets, but the 300 attacks that have occurred on his watch are six times the number carried out under President George W. Bush. A new set of guidelines that give the president broad discretion in approving execution by drones, coupled with the current congressional hearings on the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director, have brought the drone debate front and center.

Civil libertarians and activists on the left see the use of missile-firing drones to take out suspected terrorists as a threat to the rule of law. They are particularly concerned that American citizens, such as Al Qaeda propagandist Anwar Awlaki, have been killed in drone strikes without a finding of guilt and sentencing in a U.S. court. At the opening of his confirmation hearing on Thursday, Brennan — who, as Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, has managed the deadly drone missions for four years — was met by protesters shouting, “Assassination is against the Constitution! You are betraying democracy!”

Opponents of the drone attacks are making a principled point. A government free to kill citizens at will is truly the worst kind of Big Government nightmare. But few of the usual anti-government folks on the right are concerned about the drone hits. They consider the remote control killing of Al Qaeda operatives as completely justified, the equivalent of doing battle in a declared war, and any American who has joined the other side is merely getting what he deserves.

About 80% of Americans agree with that view and plenty of them are liberals and Democrats. Many see drone attacks as an improvement over commando raids and bombing runs. Drones do not put American soldiers directly at risk and they are far more precise than big bombs dropped from the sky, thus minimizing the collateral deaths of innocent bystanders. Those are pretty good debating points — probably winning points.

It is easy to see how this will play out. Concerned parties in Congress — such as Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who has threatened to filibuster Brennan’s confirmation unless the Obama administration provides more information about the drone program — will demand more limits on who can be targeted and who can approve the killings. Promises will be made, guidelines will be revised and safeguards made a little safer, but the United States will not stop using unmanned drones to deal with perceived threats. In a twilight war with no front lines and elusive enemies who hide themselves amid the flow of unsuspecting humanity, drones are an unusually effective and politically popular weapon. What president could resist pulling such an appealing trigger?

A wise president would know, however, that there will be blowback. Drones may be precise, but intelligence agencies are fallible. There will be mistakes that lead to the death of innocent people and those who survive will have good reason to hate America. The question may be, can we kill terrorists as fast as we create them? In some parts of the world, the symbol of America is no longer the Statue of Liberty, it is the killer drone.

A wise president would also anticipate the day when this technologically marvelous weapon is turned against us. A decade ago, the United States had a near monopoly on drones; now they are in the hands of dozens of countries. It is likely that some enterprising terrorist is, even now, thinking there is no reason to pack a bomb in the underpants of some aspiring martyr when it would be simpler to get hold of a cheap hobbyist’s drone, wire it up with explosives and send it on a short flight to the nearest airport.

This genie is out of the bottle. Drones are in our world to stay. Presidents, both wise and foolish, will employ them — probably too easily and often — and America’s enemies will find a way to reciprocate.

Original source: John Brennan’s killer drones are new symbol of America in the world on Los Angeles Times Exclusive

Comments are filtered for language and registration is required. The Times makes no guarantee of comments’ factual accuracy. Readers may report inappropriate comments by clicking the Report Abuse link next to a comment. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.
Your Host
 Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist David Horsey is a political commentator for the Los Angeles Times.Los Angeles Times, 202 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012 | Copyright 2013

    1. Drone Assassinations: Legal! not Moral! | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2013/02/…/drone-assassinations-legal-not-mor…

      4 days ago – Account NBCNews.com Recommended: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans …

    2. Drone Assassinations: Legal! not Moral! | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2013/02/04/drone…legal…/comment-page-1/

      4 days ago – John Brennan faces grilling over drone leak as senators demand answers Nominee for CIA director set for tough confirmation questions from …

    3. A Case Against Drone War | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2012/12/09/a-case-against-drone-war/

      Dec 9, 2012 – Hello SiDevilIam Drone Wars | Hoover Institution http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/135206 Nov 27, 2012 – No one …

    4. Obama Drone Assassination, LLP and I | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2012/12/…/obama-drone-assassination-llp-and-…

      by GF Will
      Dec 9, 2012 – Hello SiDevilIam Obama’s Immoral Drone War – 5390 unarmed, innocents, murdered … http://www.crookedbough.com/?p=14144 Nov 17, …

    5. Drone assassinations | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/tag/drone-assassinations/

      25+ items – Posts about Drone assassinations written by elcidharth.

      Drone Assassinations: Legal! not Moral
      Israel Messing Around With Azerbaijan

    6. Drone War: Name Your Price | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2012/12/07/drone-war-name-your-price/

      Dec 6, 2012 – What is worse? Locking somebody up for years, without trial, while you try to find proof he is a terrorist? Or killing somebody whose name you …

    7. Drone | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/tag/drone/

      25+ items – Posted on February 2, 2013 by elcidharth. The Complete Works …

      François Hollande, “a close friend of Mali
      DOW’s Premature Ejaculation and I

    8. 04 | February | 2013 | elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/2013/02/04/

      25+ items – John Brennan faces grilling over drone leak as senators …

      Anwar al-Aulaqui’s Terrorist Tentacles
      Soviet, Oops, US Shenanigans in Afghanistan

    9. Shiva « elcidharth

      elcidharth.com/tag/shiva/

      Dec 17, 2012 – elcidharth 7 days ago. I am glad that TIME is displaying some journalistic ideals over US Drone syndrome. We see the same desire, historically …