The presidential election and drone strikes: Five Questions

Not much has been said about the issue of drone attacks during the presidential election campaign. Robert Naiman suggests that there are five important questions that journalists should ask about the issue.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Among his other many pursuits he writes on U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post. Given that there has been little discussion of U.S. drone policy during the presidential campaign, Naiman along with others urged Bob Schieffer , who was moderator of the third and last debate between Obama and Romney, on foreign policy, to ask a question about drones. He did.

Schieffer asked the question only of Mitt Romney! He asked only Romney what his position on the use of drones is on the grounds that people already know what Obama's position is. Romney replied:

" Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends."

One can see from this answer that Romney is in basic agreement with Obama on drones. In the election campaign, the two want to emphasize their differences, and hence they will not even bring the issue up.

To ask only Romney about the issue is strange. After all, Obama seems proud of his policy and considers it a success even though there are many criticisms. Schieffer could even have asked a critical question but I suppose that would be going beyond the pale.

However, Naiman and others have considered that even bringing up the topic was a step forward. In the Guardian, Mark Weisbrot said: "It was a victory just to have drones mentioned." Perhaps it is a big leap forward over Big Bird.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said:

What we are doing with drones is remarkable. The fact that ... over George W. Bush's eight years when a lot of people brought up a bunch of legitimate questions about international law--my God, those lines have been completely eradicated in a drone policy that says that, if you're between 17 and 30, and you're within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up. And that's exactly what's happening.

The defense of these attacks as protecting civilians in the U.S. shows how completely bizarre the discourse has become. There is no direct and immediate threat to anyone in the U.S. by most of those who are targeted. At most they are a threat to U.S. troops and those who might support them in Afghanistan. The way to avoid that problem would be to withdraw the troops as many in the U.S. want.

Naiman suggests it would be informative and useful if high-profile journalists ask some detailed questions about drone policy and engage in genuine critical discussion of the issues. I doubt that this is likely to happen, certainly not before the election in any event. Here are the five questions Naiman wants asked.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan recently said that the U.S. has an official count of the number of civilians it believes to have been killed since 2008 by drone strikes in Pakistan but the number is classified. What is the number? Why is it classified?

Researchers have reported U.S. secondary or follow-up attacks that target rescuers after drone strikes. Legal experts say these attacks are war crimes. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan denies such strikes. What is the truth?

U.S. officials say that the Pakistani military secretly support the strikes. However, the Pakistan parliament has several times passed motions demanding the strikes stop. Is the U.S. violating international law and Pakistani sovereignty by the drone strikes when they are not approved by the Pakistani parliament?

U.S. officials claim the strikes are narrowly targeted on high level terror suspects. However, the U.S. also is said to use "signature strikes" based on suspicious activity. How is this consistent with narrow targeting? I think the answer to this is that it isn't but that officials do not care.

John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism adviser, says that civilian deaths are exceedingly rare. However, data collected by a number of sources show otherwise, and that at least 15-30% of deaths are civilians. If the collateral damage is this high is the U.S. violating the principle of proportionality?

Those are all good questions but I would not expect the questions even to be addressed in the near future if ever. Certainly, they are unlikely to be answered before the election.

UN human right head questions legality of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan

At the end of a fact finding visit to Pakistan Navi Pillay raised serious questions about their legality under international law. U.S. officials constantly praise the program and parade names of Al Qaeda leaders killed in the raids.

When human rights agencies try to seek information on the strikes the fact that they even exist becomes classified information but when there is propaganda value to be gained by releasing information there are names of leaders killed and the numbers of suspected militants eliminated.

The general mantra justifying the attacks is present by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as defending the U.S. However the notion of self defense in this case is surely a stretch as there may be no immediate threat.

Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan to complain of the attacks. Pakistan complains the attacks violate its sovereignty. The parliament has demanded the attacks cease. However at the same time it would seem that Pakistani intelligence may help out with targeting. Recently the U.S. has stepped up attacks even in the face of the Pakistani demand that the drone attacks cease as a condition of reopening NATO supply routes. By deliberately snubbing their noses at the Pakistani demands the U.S. makes it politically difficult for the Pakistani government to compromise.

Pillay was concerned about several aspects of the attacks. Pillay noted:"Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law, in particular the principle of distinction and proportionality," She continues:"Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command" Pillay argues that the attacks carried out by the CIA are"beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control". Of course somehow or other the New York times is able to get a lot of background information which shows that a committee assess who is to be on the kill list and the President of the U.S. makes the final decision. These are all the marvelous accountability provisions. Of course one knows only what is revealed by the New York Times from material fed to them by the U.S. administration. Pillay will no doubt rile the U.S.since she suggested that Pakistan should ask the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions to investigate some of the incidents. Many critics claim that significant numbers of innocent people are killed in the strikes. For more see this article.

State Department to Provide Legal Justification for Drone Attacks.

No doubt the administration is reluctant to provide the justifications in a timely fashion because it will be immediately criticized and the administration will be held accountable. Even to find out what facts may be available the ACLU had to file a lawsuit. Even if legal basis does stand up to criticism the problem of civilian casualties still stands. The estimate given in this article is very low actually. It seems to be the preferred estimate now. This is from the Huffington Post.

Daphne Eviatar
State Department To Produce Legal Justification for Drone Attacks
State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh has promised to produce the Obama administration's legal justification for its increased use of drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists, reports Shane Harris of the National Journal.

"I have studied this question," Koh told the audience at an American Bar Association breakfast yesterday. "I think that the legal objections that are being put on the table are ones that we are taking into account. I am comfortable with the legal position of the administration, and at an appropriate moment we will set forth that in some detail."

Let's hope that "appropriate moment" comes pretty soon, because controversy over the drone attacks is heating up. The ACLU in January filed a FOIA request asking the government to turn over that legal justification, as well as the facts underlying it. Then this week, after receiving a response from the CIA that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any relevant documents, the ACLU filed a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, as Adam Serwer points out at The American Prospect, a New America Foundation study raises concerns that about a third of the victims of drone attacks have been civilians, and international lawyers have been debating for months now whether the targeted killings violate international law. (Jane Mayer's story on drone attacks in the New Yorker last October does an excellent job of laying out the controversy.)