Targeted killings: Are drone strikes appropriate U.S. policy?
February 08, 2013 12:18 AM | 1552 views | 2 2 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The 9/11 attacks, and the desperate efforts to prevent a repeat, have forced the United States into a series of moral choices it didn’t want to make and, for the most part, had hoped to avoid.

Nonetheless, as a matter of official and unofficial policy, we embraced the concept of pre-emptive wars. Vital constitutional protections were selectively suspended (such as indefinite detention without right to trial). Traditional safeguards of privacy were overruled by the Patriot Act. Targeted assassinations — extrajudicial killings, if you will — and “enhanced interrogation techniques” amounting to torture became part of our anti-terrorism arsenal.

Most of these policies originated in the George W. Bush administration, although President John Kennedy had green-lighted CIA assassination attempts against Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 demagogic campaign rhetoric led many supporters to believe he would abandon or soften many of the policies.

However, with a few exceptions where Congress thwarted him — closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and trying its inmates in civilian criminal courts — President Obama not only embraced Bush-era surveillance and anti-terrorism policies, he expanded on them. The reason is because those methods work, as witnessed in the killing of Osama bin Laden after the waterboardings of selected captured al-Qaida figures eventually led to knowledge of his whereabouts. And Guantanamo is still open because there is no other suitably isolated place to hold those now in our custody.

Meanwhile, an internal Justice Department memo has come to light saying it is legal for the administration to kill U.S. citizens abroad if an American is a senior member of al-Qaida or an allied terrorist organization and is believed to pose an “imminent” threat of violent attacks against other Americans.

The memo appears to be justification for continued lethal drone attacks and a belated legal rationale for the 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed two Americans: Anwar al-Awlaki, 40, who preached a virulently anti-U.S. version of jihad; and Samir Khan, the 25-year-old publisher of a how-to terrorism magazine.

No one outside radical Islamic circles seems to have mourned their passing, and it can be convincingly argued that we were justified in killing them before they incited followers to begin killing some of us.

But we are a nation of rights and laws, and this memo is distressingly broad about the process of selecting Americans to assassinate. The memo says that an “imminent threat” need not be based on any specific information and that certain al-Qaida leaders are acceptable targets, on the grounds that al-Qaida leaders are always and continually plotting against the United States.

News accounts, reflecting the memo, are vague about who exactly can order a strike, referring to “an informed, high-level government official” or simply a “decision-maker.” And the memo says these projected assassinations should not be subject to judicial review; thus, the decision would solely be the prerogative of somebody in the executive branch. Would that person be the president, and might that president someday be someone of unscrupulous character willing to use such strikes against political enemies in this country? Stranger things have happened.

Not surprisingly, 11 senators who will weigh in on Obama’s nominees to the Pentagon and CIA have demanded to see the secret legal memos supporting the conclusions in the Justice memo that became public. President Obama has been given the kid gloves treatment by the big media and his Democratic allies on the drone question, but we can just imagine the furor that would now be under way had the memo in question originated during the Bush administration or that of some future Republican president.

There remain many, many questions to be answered before targeted killings, basically on one person’s say-so, become official U.S. policy.
Comments
(2)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Be Careful
|
February 08, 2013
In general, I support any effort that stops a terrorist attack. Yes, even if that means killing those first who plan to kill. In my book, if they are planning on slaughtering innocent people, they reap what they sew.

I'm not even 100% opposed to the govt killing a US citizen who is planning a terrorist attack.

However...the way the memos are worded leaves room for thought. A threat to national security.

Well, what is national security?

And, if it's OK to kill a US citizen who is in a foreign country who is threatening national security, is it that much of a stretch to think they would kill a US ciziten who's IN the US if national security is threatened?

That's a whole other ball of wax.
D.G. in Clarkdale
|
February 13, 2013
National security is whatever the current regime in Washington deems it to be. That's why its written the way it is, to give them wording ambiguous enough to twist whichever way it suits them. I'm against the killing (execution) of any American citizen without due process, unless that citizen is on an "actual battlefield" bearing arms for another "sovereign country" against us. Just think about our own legal process when in a court of law someone is sentenced to death, even then its not immediate and an appeals process is in place. This whole "who constitutes a terrorist business" or "what battlefield means" seems way too open ended to trust. Of course the meaning of citizenship has been so seriously downgraded over the last 30 years its almost like handing out party favors by our inept government.

PS... Did my comment just put me on a D.H.S. watch list because I dare to criticize the current regimes policies? Ridiculous you say, then my friends you are very naive....
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides