What the fuck is wrong with you?
(I apologize for the profanity. However, such is my dismay caused by the subject at hand that I do not feel inclined to use euphemisms just now.)
Let me start by establishing my bona fides. I do not trouble myself with the notion that I am an “independent voter.” No, I am honest enough with myself to concede pretty readily that I am partisan. I am a registered Democrat, and almost always vote for the Democratic candidate. I’ve donated lots of money to Democratic candidates, and in 2008 donated a great deal of time (including taking election day off) trying to get your slate elected. In fact, I’ve been volunteering for Democratic campaigns since I was in high school. (While I did technically vote for a non-Democrat for the Senate this last time around, it was with a pretty strong suspicion that he would caucus with you. Which he did.)
Is it clear that I’m not a stealth Tea Party concern troll? Good.
Now then, back to my question — what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have any idea how goddamn infuriating it is for me to be nodding in agreement with Rand Paul!? And smiling with appreciation at the help he received from Marco Rubio and (God in heaven help me) Ted freaking CRUZ??!? That people whose views on almost any issue you’d care to mention make my eyebrows nearly burst into flames are standing up for a principle that should be universally acclaimed, especially by you?
Why on earth are you not joining him in doing everything in your (quite substantial) power to curb the potential for extra-judicial killings of American citizens? I understand that the President is of your party and usually it’s a “go along, get along” kind of relationship between you all, but have you forgotten that you are also Senators?
Let’s look at my favorite quote from Sen. Paul’s quite admirable filibuster:
“I think its also safe to say that Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone-strike program if he were in the Senate.”
Just so. And every single last one of you should be arguing against it now. You should be crafting legislation, supported by a bipartisan, veto-proof majority, making it explicitly illegal for the United States government to execute its citizens without trial. (If Ted Cruz [God in heaven help me] is with you on this issue, I think it’s safe to say it would garner bipartisan support.)
That President Obama is now sending pussy-footed letters via his Attorney General giving mealy-mouthed assurances that they have no intention of executing US citizens on American soil using flying death robots (thanks for the phrase, Jason) is not a particular surprise. While it’s disappointing, the executive arrogating powers unto himself is typical. Once he got into the Oval Office, he started thinking like a president and presidents like presidential power.
But perhaps you’ve forgotten eighth grade civics? There’s this “checks and balances” thing? Admittedly, your chums across the aisle have been making a mockery of democracy by turning their parliamentary prerogatives into All Check, All the Time. I share your frustration there. But making iron-clad the proposition that the US government will not execute its citizens without trial should be the kind of things that even the most dunderheaded of you support.
Sadly, no. No, I am now in the nauseous position of admiring the efforts of a man whose broader policy goals I despise. I now have something nice to say about Ted Cruz (God in heaven help me) because you’re not willing to go to the mat and face down the President over an issue of paramount importance, just because he’s of your party. And that is a travesty and a disgrace.
Sack. Up.
Love, Russell
+one hundred and eleventy million.
You’re a registered Democrat and almost always vote for the Democratic candidate?
Well, the heart of the post is so good that it completely outweighs that disturbing element.
I’m mostly kidding, but it is a germane standing question that goes to whether you can really plus-one the post in a way that reproduces its full force. But you can still certainly say that you would also like the Democrats to do what Russell wants them (his own party!) to do.
Great post. I’m thinking, however, that if Rand Paul actually proposed the bill the you’re suggesting he wouldn’t get a lot of support from even fellow Republicans. Everyone is too afraid to look like they’re weak on terrorism, so few would be willing to deny the president the power to off a terrorist if he seemed likely he was about to commit some horrendous act. I’d bet the underlying assumption is that the president would never kill a “real” (i.e. white, Christian) American, that such extreme measures would be used only against Muslims.
Actually, I can easily see a world where Republicans unite on such a bill because it would be a way to stick it to Barak Hussein Obama.
Or they could pass a law that only Muslim targets are legal, because not getting droned shouldn’t be a religious entitlement.
Much easier for the image processing guiding the drones to target based on skin color, and more broadly applicable to US policy, historically speaking
Sadly, petty partisanship is the only way we can get Congress to do anything right. God help us if they ever learn to work together.
No such bill would ever make it past even committee. For the simple fact is that government routinely and regularly kills people without trial. Now I know accused criminals getting gunned down don’t set off the outrage meter the same way “flying death robots” do, but I’ll bet gold for copper that far more US citizens are summarily killed by cops in a month than US citizens have been targeted in ANY counter-terrorism program since 9/11.
Moreover, again, Paul’s entire screed is based on what are at best tortured readings of the Administration’s legal policy and at worst complete and utter fabrications of hypotheticals.
No such bill would ever make it past even committee.
The nuances of such a law with regard to domestic law enforcement procedure would be incredibly difficult, I’ll grant. And I take the point you make in your post at the main page in that regard.
Was Paul’s filibuster larded with silliness? Sure. (Jane Fonda? Really?) But I remain appalled at the sudden blindness the Democrats have with regard to all them worrisome civil liberties questions that were ever so very important when Bush was in office but magicked themselves out of existence the minute Obama took office.
Democrats aren’t blind to these issues, and I think you’re mistaking all this pointless grandstanding with those who have been working to do substantive work to correct it. Ron Wyden, Jared Polis and many other Democrats in Congress have offered actual legislative solutions, including restrictions on the AUMF or even repealing it.
They haven’t been blind, just unwilling to turn it into the familiar old saw about tyrannical governments blahblahblahblahblah.
That is to say, no. If you want actual solutions, Democrats have been proposing them. That they haven’t gotten up to go on some long rambling absurdity like Paul has based on willful misrepresentation (Paul in fact, admits that Holder answered his question in a satisfactory manner in something like hour 7 of his filibuster) but rather on actual policy solutions to the problems you’re suggesting.
Democrats also put the detention provisions into the AUMF, and as my Dem. Senator Car Levin pointed out in the floor debate, the Democratic president wanted them there.
I like Ron Wyden, and I liked him when he was my senator. But is working on a bill that surely has almost no chance of passage really superior to trying to get the public whipped up? We’re back to Weber, where’s there’s both the technocratic/bureaucratic vision and the vision of charismatic leadership. Both matter.
James,
Did you even hear about Bernie’s speech, musta been … a year or two ago? Nobody pays attention to Democrats grandstanding…
Ron Wyden, Jared Polis and many other Democrats in Congress have offered actual legislative solutions, including restrictions on the AUMF or even repealing it.
Great. What’s the status of that legislation? When did Harry Reid indicate we might expect a vote on the floor? Which committee has voted on it?
If you asked these questions on dailykos, I’m certain someone would drop by and give you the answer.
I don’t know them off the top of my head, but we do pay folks to track this sort of thing.
I didn’t ask them on Daily Kos. I am not particularly interested in Daily Kos. If I were, I would spend my time there. I choose to spend it here instead, and it is here where I have put my questions to a particular interlocutor.
The Jane Fonda bit isn’t as silly as you may think. To an older generation of conservatives, she’s still a traitor for her actions during the Vietnam War, and they really would enjoy seeing her treated accordingly.
It’s a bit of conservative political culture that rarely sees the light these days, but I distinctly recall some older family members talking about her in just these terms. It’s a real thing alright.
I understand the sincerity of their feelings, but bringing up such a long, long ago issue was patent pandering and a pretty labored example, to boot.
I’m not sure it was pandering to the older conservatives. He was after all mentioning it as a bad idea, not a good one.
I kind of assumed that the Jane Fonda thing was similar to reading cookbooks or whatever – in a filibuster you’re just saying whatever comes to mind to keep the clock running.
Honestly, the Jane Fonda example strikes me as really quite apt. Imagine someone doing what she famously did in Vietnam today:
– Goes and pays a visit to OBL around 2008-2009, and not on a faux peacemaking journey but instead to express support for Al Qaeda’s aims
– Films a Youtube propaganda video with OBL in which she takes pictures in an IED factory, or maybe holding an RPG
-Records a video expounding the virtues of al Qaeda and its causes
Would those acts be treason or legitimate (if appalling) protest? Probably the latter, though it’s understandable that many might think it should be the former. Regardless, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that, under the Administration’s apparent policy, the answer to that question wouldn’t matter – these actions could easily warrant her being deemed an “enemy combatant” subject to a drone strike whereever she travelled in the world without any judicial process.
While few go as far as Fonda went, it’s an important hypothetical to ask – in the minds of far too many people (not me, I must emphasize), the line between “legitimate protest” and “aiding the enemy” is quite blurred; the same is true on the other side for the line between “legitimate mistrust of the government/support of states’ rights” and “open rebellion.”
Mark,
I would urge you to take a closer look at what is known (“apparent”) about the policy wrt to U.S. citizens. (Not enough is known, but you’ve based what you’ve said on what is known, i.e. “apparent.”) Yes, there are ways that Fonda’s behavior in the context of Al Qaeda could be seen to bring her under the description in AUMF of whom the president can kill. But that is not what the administration says it’s *policy* is wrt to killing U.S. citizens who come under that description. I’d ask you to review the available public statements about what that policy is and reconsider what you say about whether an American who took actions analogous to Fonda’s wrt to Al Qaeda today, and only those, would (or “could easily”) be subject to killing pursuant to what we know about the administration’s *policy* regarding using force against American citizens in the WoT. Or alternatively, to consider whether what you mean to say is that the laws currently on the books (in particular AUMF), read apart from restrictions on their application to (at least) U.S. citizens given by the Constitution, would suggest that such actions would make a citizen subject to “all necessary and appropriate force” as provided in AUMF.
Michael- the incredible breadth with which the Administration has interpreted the “associated forces” authority is such that I can’t agree. As a practical matter, I suspect that the Administrtion would not in fact use drone strikes in this matter, but that’s not the point, which is that there’s nothing to prevent the Administration from doing so under its theory.
Yes, but as a matter of policy wrt to what their actions will be wrt to those associated forces in the cases where U.S. citizens might become distinguishable individual targets of force pursuant to that definition, they have indicated conditions on when they will use lethal force against such citizens that I believe would fairly reliably preclude the use of force against a citizen who took the Fonda-analogous actions you describe but no others. As a strict matter, I’d concede that’s within the realm of reasonable debate, so your statement might be true that it would be reasonable to assert otherwise, but I think it would be a fairly clearly wrong statement while being within the bounds of reasonableness. Obviously I respect your opinion whether it concurs there or not.
Actually, you’re quite right that the comparison between Jane Fonda and Anwar al-Awlaki is instructive.
(As an aside to bolster this point: I remember my grandfather pulling my mother aside back in 1984 or something and gently reminding her that he didn’t care how many Oscars “On Golden Pond” won, he wasn’t going to see it and wouldn’t think well of anyone who did go to see it.)
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly did Jane Fonda do to generate such feelings?
K,
Linky, that separate the true parts of the story from the false parts.
I recall how her actions were felt by the Left. Some idiots were in favor of the trip, but more than a few, Joan Baez in particular, were horrified.
If you go to the google and do a search on “jane fonda vietnam” and switch to image search, you’ll see a number of pictures of Jane Fonda sitting behind an anti-aircraft gun and, in a couple of photos, looking through the sight.
A big deal was made of whether she ever pulled the trigger or not, and, if she did, whether she was firing at American aircraft or not. (Her position is that she never fired the gun, just looked through the sight.)
Anyway, the question (or one of them) is this: let’s say that Richard Milhous Nixon happened to drop a bomb on her. Would this have been within his rights as President?
Would it be so difficult? The vast majority of law enforcement activities are carried out by state and local officials, not the feds.
For the simple fact is that government routinely and regularly kills people without trial. Now I know accused criminals getting gunned down don’t set off the outrage meter the same way “flying death robots” do, but I’ll bet gold for copper that far more US citizens are summarily killed by cops in a month than US citizens have been targeted in ANY counter-terrorism program since 9/11.
And I entirely agree there should be an investigation of any killing of a suspect, and that shootings of unarmed or barely-armed should by cops should be sharply punished.
But that is not the same as the drone program, because there is at least the theoretical possibility of the person being perceived as an immediate threat by the person taking the shot. Deliberate targeting killings of people is something entirely different; deliberate targeting killings of citizens – with no oversight, to boot – should be a very serious constitutional issue, due to it being government-authorized execution of people without due process. The government isn’t ordering cops to shoot suspects, so when the cops do so needlessly the onus is on them, not the government – and on the government to investigate and punish as necessary. It’s two completely different issues.
Nob,
I don’t think it is appropriate to lump in people killed during the commission of crimes by law enforcement with terrorists or terrorists suspects being targeted for pre-emptive killing. If someone poses a direct and active threat to human life, law enforcement should be empowered to (if not charged with) using force to stop that person. Now, this can certainly be abused and I think all reasonable non-lethal methods should be exhausted before lethal methods are employed, but this is a power we should want to exist, even if we’d reform how it is employed currently.
But even a ticking time-bomb scenario doesn’t justify a strike on someone who isn’t standing their arming the bomb and ensuring its detonation. If the government can take the time to identify, isolate, and target a suspect on US soil, then they certainly have the means and the opportunity to detain that person.
And would you believe that that’s actually what HOLDER said? Hell even Rand Paul admits that’s what the Attorney General was getting at.
Are people really this obtuse?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE USED UNLESS THERE WAS A 9/11 “SHOOT DOWN” TYPE SCENARIO.
How was this unclear?
Nob,
I haven’t read all of the different memos and statements, so if that is indeed the limits that the Administration seek to set, I’d probably agree. But as I understand it, there is a real lack of clarity on exactly what that line is and what steps are taken to make sure the powers-that-be stay on the proper side of it.
Well, Nob, as it happens I don’t think I’m being obtuse at all.
As I understand it, the federal government has explicitly arrogated unto itself the right to assassinate American citizens it believes to be assassination-worthy in the War on Terror, to which there is no end in sight. I am unaware of any similarly-explicit explanation from the federal government about how it justifies putting particular American citizens on its list of people it can assassinate. I am further unaware of any stipulation that the theater of war wherein this can occur excludes the United States itself. Indeed, I am unaware of any stipulated limit on what the President can authorize against the citizens of the United States if he deems them appropriate targets in the War on Terror, to say nothing of those poor unfortunates who happen to be been born on the wrong side of the world.
Now, do I think Rand Paul’s filibuster is the very keenest means of drawing attention to these issues of concern? No. What I’d really, really prefer is for my party, the one I supported so ardently in 2008 in no small part because of my horror at the Bush administration’s manifold civil liberties transgressions, to legislate unambiguous limits on what the President is authorized to do against American citizens as part of his war powers. That is what I would find ever so very wonderful. But since they appear unmotivated to address that issue with any particular zeal and alternatives are thin on the ground, I’ll take a 13-hour filibuster by a man whose policies I almost uniformly despise.
Is that clear, or am I still being obtuse?
I would say you’re being well meaning, but perhaps restricted on your knowledge of the subject.
While I do think that politics and law on the matter of lethal force is not the same as medicine, there’s a substantial lot of pieces and articles I’ve read and studied and sorted through at a graduate level in the last two years, than say the average Paul supporter listening to his filibuster has dealt with.
James has noted that I do tend to take a technocratic view of this, so maybe I’m being too glib in my dismissal of Paul.
But here: The administration’s clarified in plain language:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/carney-affirms-limits-to-governments-authority-to-use
Can the US government use lethal force in the case of a US citizen on US soil not posing an imminent threat? No.
Please define the following terms (from the administration’s clarification in plain language to which you link):
1) “Combat.”
2) “Hostile activities.”
Please delineate for me what degree of engagement in said hostile activities is sufficient for the Obama (or subsequent) administration to justify being targeted.
Please help me understand in what way (in the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi) being a terrorist recruiter counts as “combat.” Please limn for me the kind of speech that would comprise a similar form of “combat” such that Attorney General Holder’s reassurances would no longer hold.
I’m all ears.
Well first, let me state that hostile activities and combat in the letter are combined with the condition that the US citizen is on US soil. That already satisfies one of the main conditions of feasibility of capture. Presumably this means that “combat” or “hostile activities” are actions which make capture infeasible. So this would mean engaging in combat actions to prevent capture (ie a shoot out) or wearing a bomb vest while driving a fuel tanker, etc.
The Al-Aulaqui situation is complicated by the fact that he was in Yemen. When his father brought a challenge against the United States government about using lethal force, he was judged to not have standing because Anwar was an adult citizen who had chosen not to avail himself to judicial remedies against which he could avail himself, presumably by turning himself into the nearest US consulate.
I admit I’m not sure if this is entirely reassuring. I do think this is where perhaps a requirement of explicit ex-ante judicial authorization would be an improvement. But I’m also somewhat leary of creating an alternate national security court that can hand out death warrants even if it is judicially sanctioned.
But that’s precisely the problem, Nob. It is not at all reassuring. The United States government killed an American citizen who at no point was himself an imminent threat to national security. I am not moved by the argument that he was inconveniently located as a justification for deciding to kill him, or that if he didn’t want to be assassinated he could always take his chances and turn himself in.
How successfully must an American citizen engaged in similar activities within the United States elude capture before it is deemed acceptable to kill him? (The question of whether or not a drone is employed is not particularly relevant to me.) How remote and well-defended a location must he occupy before it’s maybe OK to just bomb the shit out of it?
I suspect if Mr. Dornan was more than an Army of One, we may have found out as recently as now.
How well defended was Ruby Ridge? Or the Branch Davidian compound in Waco?
Those seem to be the closest analogies for that hypothetical.
But you’re making my point for me! You’re pointing out two of the most egregious botches the federal government pulled against its own citizens within recent history. Having seen just how very well the Justice Department managed to deal with the Branch Davidians, why on earth should I be reassured that the only time the US government would ever target its own citizens was when they were engaged in combat?
What counts as combat? Who gives the “extract vs incinerate (deliberately this time!)” order, and on what grounds?
@ Russell – I asked many of the questions you asked, and Nob answered them, in this thread, if this saves either of you any time:
Thread start:
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2012/09/sit-down-and-shut-up-because-were-many-and-youre-few/#comment-378070
(thread gets derailed a bit with election nonsense, picks back up):
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2012/09/sit-down-and-shut-up-because-were-many-and-youre-few/#comment-378150
I have a comment in moderation, if anyone can fish it out please?
Hm, I probably shouldn’t have done that, myself. Apologies, Doctor. I’m only supposed to have admin rights on BT for backend observational reasons.
@Patrick — You presumptuous bastard!
@Glyph — I simply don’t understand why it was so important that al-Aulaqi be made dead, is all. Or what specific criteria were met to establish the need for his deadness.
Doc – sorry, I am not trying to take Nob’s side – just trying to save you two some time because I saw you asking some of my same questions. If it’s not clear from that thread or my other comments, I am with you.
I don’t think Obama is a bad person; I think he thought he was doing the right and necessary thing when he killed Al-Awlaki.
But it shouldn’t (IMO, based on what we know) have happened, and we should be taking steps to prevent a similar situation in future.
I would never go so far as to call Obama a bad person. I am usually quite loath to pronounce on the goodness of anyone else’s soul, current and former presidents included.
I think he is exhibiting one of the worst (but sadly common) practices of those who have occupied his office, which is expanding its power beyond the bounds it should properly have.
We are in agreement.
How well defended was …the Branch Davidian compound in Waco?
Heh, I’m not sure you want to go there. David Koresh was known to walk about town pretty freely, and many argue he could easily have been apprehended without ever approaching the compound.
The lesson a cynic like me might draw from that is that the government’s promise not to kill someone unless it’s impossible to capture them shouldn’t be relied upon. (And of course this president’s words can in no way serve as constraints on a future president.)
The administration’s clarified in plain language:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/carney-affirms-limits-to-governments-authority-to-use
Can the US government use lethal force in the case of a US citizen on US soil not posing an imminent threat? No.
Nob, I’m afraid I don’t find this convincing, for two reasons.
1. The Prez already violated the “imminent threat” standard with al Awlaki. On what basis should an objective party trust that they wouldn’t violate it again?
2. Holder was responding to the question of whether the prez “has the authority to use a mechanized drone against an American on U.S. soil who is not engaged in hostile activities.” Note that “not engaged in hostile activities.” That means the prez doesn’t have authority to order a drone strike on a citizen who’s not a terrorist by the administration’s standards. But the moment the administration decides–using whatever secret standards it relies upon–that a citizen is engaged in hostile activities, that person is automatically outside the boundaries of the question.
Paul’s question was poorly phrased (surprise, surprise), leaving a loophole big enough to fly a drone through. And no doubt Holder, who’s a damn smart lawyer, recognized that right away and had himself a nice glass of scotch in celebration of how easily he outlawyered Rand Paul.
And no doubt Holder, who’s a damn smart lawyer, recognized that right away and had himself a nice glass of scotch in celebration of how easily he outlawyered Rand Paul.
I don’t think that this is necessarily a win.
How many people out there will see this as not a lawyerly response but a straightforward one?
So, let’s say, a drone gets used on an American Citizen on American Soil and it gets publicized… will Holder pointing out that he used a very specific phrasing help against the outcry?
I’m saying that it won’t.
Obama actually agreed with you.
From NY Times November 24, 2012
“Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is justified.
Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory. ”
I’m **HOPING** Paul gave the matter more urgency again.
So, let’s say, a drone gets used on an American Citizen on American Soil
A drone is a blunt instrument that kills bystanders. That’s not going to happen outside of a 24-like “He’s about to detonate a nuke” scenario. if only because there are much less noisy ways to accomplish the same thing.
The argument that “it totally wouldn’t be pragmatic for the government to do X, therefore you don’t have to worry about the government doing X” is a good response for whether we have to worry about the government doing X.
If, however, you’re worrying about whether the government sees itself has having the power to do X, the above answer is less reassuring because it’s difficult to not notice that the above answer is answering another question entirely.
To Jaybird: this is why I think focusing so much on the “drone” aspect is a bit distracting. A drone is a weapon, a tool: like a gun, or a bomb. Able to be used for good or ill.
If you’re not against a bomb per se, and not against a RC or automated vehicle, and not against a camera/telemetry, then it doesn’t necessarily make much sense to be against them when they are all combined into one package, IMO.
But you are *absolutely right* that the principle is the critical thing.
Not to mention, TODAY drones are large blunt objects that kill many people. The march of technology and miniaturization being what it is, I expect that tomorrow, they’ll come in fun-pak and single-serving sizes. So worries of “collateral damage” will no longer need to stay anyone’s hand.
Did anyone ever read the PKD short story The Unreconstructed M? It’s about small robots that are used to not only commit murder, but plant physical evidence framing someone for it, and IIRC can disguise themselves as household items to avoid detection?
That’s where we’re headed.
Obama should have given drones to law enforcement for a couple of years.
I’ll have to toss one of the administration’s clarifications in the waste-basket for lack of clarity.
Someone should write more carefully, because by his wording the US government can only target an American citizen if they are in combat on American soil, not if they’re in combat somewhere else. A nitpick perhaps, but the point of this whole drama has been to get some clarity from someone.
I share many of the misgivings being expressed about both the vague nature of how they’re interpretting words like “imminent threat”, with usages that seem to shade into “potential threat.” Rand Paul himself was identified as a “potential terrorist” by the Department of Homeland Security (along with all Tea Party members), and if getting on the targeted robot death list is anything like getting on the no-fly list, well, we’re in serious trouble.
I also have a nit to pick with the government’s claim that they could rightfully kill the American in Yemen because he was free to walk into a US embassy. He was an Al Qaeda member. Since when (aside from Benghazi) have we allowed Al Qaeda members to freely waltz into our embassies? Heck, if he brought a few friends he’d probably have the security guards outnumbered.
Obama should have given drones to law enforcement for a couple of years.
Law enforcement will get them. It’s inevitable. And in some cases it will be helpful; after all, there’s no need for a robot to overreact & shoot your terrifying Yorkie.
Again, the tool is not the issue. The principle is. “No person shall be deprived of ” etc. etc.
There’s something absolutely critical that you’re missing here, Nob. You’re focused on the policy as the Administration has announced it. But that policy is only possible because of the legal theory that the Administration has adopted to justify it. Policy changes all the time, but that legal theory is going to outlast the Administration by a hell of a lot longer. Take just the legal theory necessary to justify the policy; now put that legal theory in the hands of a Romney Administration.
What kinds of policies do you think that Romney Administration would be able to reasonably justify with that theory? How much do you trust our hypothetical Romney Administration to maintain a highly narrow definition of “combat”?
It seems like your emphasis is on whether the Administration is abusing this power they’ve abrogated to themselves, which is a matter of your degree of trust of this Administration; but the issue is that this is an incredible power for the Executive to claim, and one without any checks against its abuse.
Quite literally, the theory asserts the ability for the government to kill its own citizens -without due process, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and without an imminent threat – just as long as someone in the Executive Branch labels the citizens at issue with an undefined or, at best, vaguely defined, word. The Administration isn’t indicating whether there are any limits to this power; it is, instead, just saying that it doesn’t intend to use this power outside of particular circumstances. Nothing prevents a future Administration – or, for that matter, even this Administration – from changing its mind; indeed, the policy of when the Administration intends to use its power isn’t even subject to informal rulemaking procedures so far as I am aware.
Shorter me: as expressed, the Administration has asserted only limits to the situations it intends to use this power, but has not acknowledged any meaningful limits to the power itself.
That’s in the spirit of John Locke, who argued that people are all too willing to cede powers to a good king and then can’t rein those powers back in when they have a bad king.
I wouldn’t use a hypothetical Romney administration as an example because he strikes people as too wishy-washy. Would he use drones to attack Al Qaeda or invite them to an Osmond concert? Who knows?
A better hypothetical would be a Palin administration, or one run by Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. If Cheney had drones he wouldn’t have to shoot people with a shotgun. Palin would use them not only to kill Al Qaeda members, but to hunt problem poley bears (Alaska already hunts troublemakers from the air). Rumsfeld would use them to eliminate unknowns.
Rumsfeld: “Our automatic facial recognition software couldn’t figure out who this guy was, so here’s the video feed from the drone, and there’s the missile tracking in on him. Boom. Unknown eliminated. Questions?”
Wolf Blitzer: “An unknown person? So you can’t say whether he’s an active Al Qaeda member or not!”
Rumsfeld: “Oh, I can say with absolute certainty that after that strike he’s not an active anything. Did I mention how much I love my job?”
Well done.
This was really funny, George.
Mark,
“It seems like your emphasis is on whether the Administration is abusing this power they’ve abrogated to themselves, which is a matter of your degree of trust of this Administration; but the issue is that this is an incredible power for the Executive to claim, and one without any checks against its abuse.”
With regards to killing US citizens overseas, it was my understanding that the president was claiming this power pursuant to the AUMF, with restrictions imposed by the constitution, international law, and the laws of war. So aren’t the courts (through decisions deciding what process is due, law of war, etc), and the congress (through authorizing the use of force) the checks against the administrations theory wrt killing US citizens overseas?
“the theory asserts the ability for the government to kill its own citizens -without due process, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and without an imminent threat – just as long as someone in the Executive Branch labels the citizens at issue with an undefined or, at best, vaguely defined, word. The Administration isn’t indicating whether there are any limits to this power; it is, instead, just saying that it doesn’t intend to use this power outside of particular circumstances.”
It seems, on my reading, that the administrations theory is that they have the ability (authorized by the AUMF) to kill US citizens if they determine the suspect is an operatives of AQ or affiliates, that capture is not feasible, and that they pose an imminent threat. And that, under their theory, these limitations are required by the constitution before they can legally kill a US citizen overseas. So while words are mushy things, it does seem like there are limits, and that if the courts were to step in and define through judicial review these determinations of imminence and due process that would do a great deal to limit the presidents theory of executive power under the AUMF.**
This is all to say that to me the major issue with their theory is the breadth of their conception of imminent threat. The due process required when an act is ‘actually’ imminent* is probably satisfied by the administrations current policies, but, and this is a big but, it’s hard to imagine how an individuals due process rights are not violated when the government claims the right to kill him if the executive determines that he is an AQ member who can’t be captured (the administrations definition does seems that broad).
On the question of what constitutes due process in these types of cases, the administration has staked out a position which is much further than I would like (but not outside the bounds of rational argument), and both the courts and congress have, so far, punted on limiting this power. So, finally, Obama’s position seems less likely a huge executive power grab, and more like a continuation of over a decade (if not more) of the status quo.
On a final note (and in case this wasn’t clear), while the courts and the judiciary are culpable for the continuation of these policies, the theory of executive authority and final policy judgments are made by Obama, and the blame for rightly rests with him.
*defined as going to take place unless we kill this person right now (its hard to even come up with an imminent threat hypo that would meet this criteria). This also seems to be the definition that almost everybody here would agree to.
**Seeing as they already punted on ex ante judicial review, ex poste could serve the same purpose going forward, and, as someone else noted, be subject to less risk of capture. The administration position on the issue of judicial review generally is, frankly, the one I find the most indefensible.
Jesus, I didn’t realize that comment was so long. Sorry for the wall of text.
Well said!
Drones are, in themselves, only a tool. But they are being used to do things that would, in the era before there emergence, have been considered unjustifiable. Such as as waging wars in areas where no war has been declared and military intervention has not even be debated. Such as assassinating people and claiming no need to explain or justify why they have been targeted, or even what mechanism is used to make the decision to target them. Such as killing thousands of people, many of them civilians, in areas where no war and not even any “military action” has been declared, and then claiming that anyone who’s male and somewhere in the 15-60 age range is definitionally a “combatant”. Such as killing citizens without any trial, or any presentation of evidence to any court, or any clear definition of limits of who, if anyone, the executive is not permitted to decide to kill.
There need to be people opposing this kind of thing, whichever party they come from.
“Such as assassinating people and claiming no need to explain or justify why they have been targeted, or even what mechanism is used to make the decision to target them”
False.
The administration has published detailed descriptions of how they determine who is on their hit list, and the evidence against those people?
Please link me to it.
No, sorry. I was unclear! My fault.
Before drones, we were already using the Israeli airforce as a tool to assassinate people and not need to explain or justify anything.
Oh.
I think there’s a distinction between things done as covert ops, where people aren’t supposed to be clearly aware that we’re doing it, and things that are made a part of government policy. The US had used torture before 9/11 (heck, they trained a lot of the security forces in Latin American dictatorships on torture methods), but it was secret and illegal, not systematized. The US has conducted secret assassinations before now. But they weren’t an acknowledged and widespread part of government policy.
I should have gotten into that nuance more in my first post.
Yeah, I hate us tearing off the white hat and burning it. It’s bad for propaganda, and it’s bad for morale.
If you’re going to do seriously sketchy shit, at least have the balls to call it that.
Russ for Senate!
I totally agree with you on moral grounds.
But here’s the rub for me: With drones, the genie’s out of the bottle. Right now, we have drones and drone technology.
Pretty soon, everyone will. I don’t know what that means; but I fully expect to hear reports of drones spying on people through their windows, of terrorist groups using drones to both spy and commit acts of terrorism (isn’t that what our use of drones already is?) and drone reports on traffic movement, storm tracks, etc.
I think the moral calculus important now. Sadly, I don’t think it will matter a bit later; other then to make us feel morally superior. And perhaps we shouldn’t; perhaps we should wear our shame.
Bravo. Very well said, zic.
Yeah, we’re already getting storm tracks via drone (unarmed drone. why would you arm the thing??)…
And there’s the goosinator, as well.
The moral calculus seems mostly obvious.
There’s the bad stuff — killing folks
The “not good” stuff — spying in 12 year old’s windows (equiv. to dogging, I guess.)
And the good stuff… info on places that are too dangerous to send people. Better news.
Since the early 70’s, there has been satellites with infrared capability that can read a hand of cards through the roof of your house.
The real limitation is capacity.
and the japanese had sunglasses that would let them see through clothes (IR)
“… terrorism (isn’t that what our use of drones already is?)”
Hey, now! You’re stealing my shtick!
Actually, that’s a lot of the stuff that the drones were doing before they added the explosives to them.
It’s really our satellite technology that keeps up militarily superior at this point.
And cryptography.
I just remembered this, and I think it’s worth noting.
Remember all that stuff about CFCs depleting the ozone from back in the late 70’s?
It was drones that finally proved it.
They argued over it for a few years before then; the industry deniers, and the whole shebang.
Then this team of researchers flying drones over the antarctic were the first to verify it.
Back then, the issue was getting the drones up high enough.
There’s a whole lot of knowledge awaiting information about the upper atmosphere; most particularly climate modeling. I can see drones playing a role there. They still rely on weather balloons for some information; we’re still stuck in the dark ages of atmospheric modeling. My understanding is that there were plans to use radar/sonar from satellites to help model, but for some nations, there were concerns this would be a weapon/spy tool, etc., and so some of those efforts were put on hold. I do not know if things have changed, haven’t seen the meteorologist working in the project in a few years.
My comment is an echo of Katherine’s. The unmanned aircraft (or flying death robot if you prefer) is a weapon. A sophisticated one but in principle no different than a firearm or a pointy stick.
Who uses the weapon, and against whom it is used, and to what end, and after what thought has been put in to its use, are far more interesting questions.
Burt,
Yes and no. A drone is “just another weapon” and the “how” it is employed matters more than “what” is being employed. But, there are implications to the development and use of drones that are different, in much the same way that there are implications to the development and use of weapons when pointy sticks ruled the world.
A drone strike is largely preferable to a more traditional bombing because of the reduction (though not elimination) of collateral damage: precision is morally preferable. The unmanned nature of them, though, is both preferable and not. Reducing casualties is good. But, if we reduce casualties such that the drawbacks to going to war or engaging in certain actions are nil, than we lose whatever practical counterweight existed to the use of force. There might be moral objections, but those never weigh as heavily as body bags piling up on our side of the line. If there is no consequence for taking an action, than that action is going to be taken increasingly often. To me, that is troubling. Deeply troubling.
I don’t discount the moral weight of the concern that war ought to carry a heavy cost so as to discourage nations from initiating them. My protest is that this is nothing new.
Those who occupy themselves with the innovation of new military devices have always concerned themselves with only two objectives: increasing the killing power of the friendly combatant, and decreasing the killing power of the enemy combatant. Moral objections to an imbalance caused by new technologies have been raised for all of history: stealth aircraft and seacraft, ICBMs, nuclear weapons, tanks, grapeshot, submarines, rifled musket barrels, yew longbows, trebuchets, plate armor, chain armor, stirrups, gladii, phalanx formations, war chariots. Each of these enabled either substantially enhanced ability to kill at a distance or afforded direct insulation from harm to the warrior — thus making the warrior safer but the enemy more vulnerable, and reducing the cost in blood of going to war.
Protests over the immorality of effective military innovations have fallen by the wayside in each instance as the technology proliferated and the imbalance of power on the battlefield moved back towards parity. Drones are the next step in the process. Right now we have them and we let our friends use them. Soon enough, everyone will have them. And soon enough after that, they will be as passe as bayonettes or breech-loaders.
Again, I’m not saying that’s a good thing. I’m saying it’s not a new thing.
That is fair. As someone who is not yet 30, this is the biggest real development in my adult life, so it seems “new”, even though you rightly point out that it isn’t. And I should make clear that I don’t wholly object to drones; I simply think it important to note that they are not “just another weapon” because, like some but not all weapons before them, they do change the way the game is played.
I am also tempted to point out that the pattern as described has not yet become the case with nuclear weapons… but I’ve already gone pretty far down that windmill-powered rabbit hole before.
As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Drones are different than other weapons, but not sufficiently so that their use and implications are unprecedented.
The unmanned aircraft (or flying death robot if you prefer) is a weapon. A sophisticated one but in principle no different than a firearm or a pointy stick.
The thing is, that’s just how we use it. It could be so much more; much of it bad, true. But much of it good. A for instance would investigating forest fire; getting information where there’s too much danger to send living people. Weather I mentioned above. But I can also imagine drones used to help rescuers after earthquake. They used drones to investigate the innards of the reactors in Japan. I can imagine drones used to help gather information in a hostage situation.
It’s not just the tool itself, the use deserves moral investigation. But that is true with all tools; even a frying pan.
I recently met with a bunch of autonomous programmers to discuss exactly uses of drones in exception scenarios.
For example, autonomous drones would be a big help policing places like Catalina Island, Griffith Park, etc. for fires.
Avalanche conditions. I can imagine a quad-copter version used for mining disasters. For flying search patterns to locate persons in trouble on the high seas. Assisting with woodland search-and-rescue operations. Tracking migratory animals. There are infinite uses imaginable, both rescue and scientific.
But I’ve read every book Iain Banks ever wrote. There’s this future me who includes drones amongst my best of friends.
As a weapon in the hands of the U.S. Military? Horrid.
But even here, there’s an arc of story to pay attention to; for much initial investment for R&D at the hands of defense later turns to great good when repurposed.
The government wants supersoldiers.
So now the quadrupelegic can walk (and pilot remote vehicles!).
(okay, that’s not now. But soon!)
You should see writing a DARPA grant. They want you to tell them how your itty bitty project will revolutionize all of warfare. Very very different from NSF grants.
Somewhere in a smarmy lab, round a poorly-lit table with various implements, a group of vile and ill-kempt brainiac top-secret super-scientists are working on reproducing the DNA of Godzilla to create an army of executive super-soldiers.
Just so we can have this same conversation all over again in a year or two.
Linkie:
http://www.goosinator.com/
Yes, indeed.
1) Because he’s on our side and we’re partisian
2) We might like to use this “feature” at some point in the future (no one with power wants to give it up)
3) We’ll look bad in public opinion as not being tough
4) We’ve been “bought off”
5) Who cares about some american proles getting killed. I’ve got mine and I’m safe.
Pick any one or all of the above.