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.

Officially U.S. government does not admit that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone attack!

The New York Times and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) have been seeking to have the U.S. government release information about the (alleged!) program of targeted killings using drones. The suit has been ongoing since June 2011 and the U.S. government has repeatedly taken the position that to even affirm or deny the existence of the program would endanger national security.

This is the official position even though U.S. officials and the president have repeatedly spoken about the program indicating how successful it has been and how few civilian casualties there are.Obama even boasted about killing the Anwar al-Awlaki a U.S. citizne in Yemen. There was even a long article in the New York Times based no doubt on information deliberately leaked to paint a mostly positive portrait of the president and his kill list.

Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30 2011. Of the killing Obama boasted:: "The death of Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore this success is a tribute to our intelligence community …"" Even though Obama said this apparently it does not imply that there even is a drone program or that Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone.. Apparently the government cannot even acknowledge what the president clearly said.

This idiocy has a rational purpose. The U.S. government can release classified information that they believe will help them politically while denying critics any information that might be disadvantageous politically. However the U.S. government does admit that it was responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden! For more see this article.. The entire Motion For Summary Judgment presented by the U.S. government can be found here.

CIA and U.S. government still neither affirm or deny existence of drone program

Even though everyone knows that there are drone attacks by the CIA in Pakistan and Yemen among other locations targeting suspected terrorists the official position of the CIA is that they neither confirm or deny it. Obama has bragged about killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan and Yemen. Panetta has defended the program and called it successful. Yet the official CIA line does not even admit the program exists.

Given that everyone knows the program exists and the president and national defense chief have specifically talked about the program it seems a bit asinine to deny that it exists. However the CIA position has a purpose and that is to keep any details hidden from the public while U.S. officials reveal whatever aspects of the program they think will be politically advantageous to them.

The ACLU has been for some time trying to obtain information on the drone program through the Freedom of Information Act. There will be a hearing on the matter on Sept. 20. Twenty six members of the U.S. Congress have asked Obama to consider the consequences of the program and explain its necessity. However, the ACLU has been trying to get information from 2010. The ACLU asked to see the legal basis for the attacks, restrictions on those targeted, civilian casualties, geographic limits to attacks, and the number of attacks carried out and other features of the program.

A federal judge sided with the CIA ruling that to confirm or deny the existence of the program and records would expose national security secrets. So there you have it. Even to admit the existence of the program would expose national security secrets. However Obama can reveal anything about the program that he finds useful politically and Leon Panetta can do likewise. This is what is known as accountability. For more see this article.

Pakistan may not attend upcoming Chicago summit on Afghanistan

     The Chicago Summit on Afghanistan sponsored by NATO is slated to start on May 20th. However Pakistan may not attend. The NATO general secretary more or less implied that Pakistan was not welcomed unless it reopens closed transit routes for NATO supplies through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
    However Pakistan has also suggested that unless drone strikes cease in Pakistan's tribal areas it will boycott the meeting. The U.S,. has indicated that it will not stop the attacks in fact they have been continuing even after several motion by the Pakistan parliament have demanded they cease.
   A recent Pentagon report claims that terrorists still have safe havens in parts of the Tribal Areas. This no doubt means that drone attacks will not stop. The two sides seem to be at an impasse. However talks are ongoing next week to try and solve the issues outstanding. It will be politically difficult for Pakistan to give in and allow continuing drone attacks but it also wants a great deal of money several billion it feels it is owed for past efforts against terrorism. For more see this article.

America's Third War of Covert Operations

"America's Third War" is the title of an article by Micah Zenko that can be found here. Zenko notes that democratic governments have a responsibility to keep citizens informed about their activities although he admits that some secrets that would compromise national security should remain secret. However in practice governments keep secret whatever they think might be politically damaging even though revealing what they are doing would not harm national security. Often "national security" is used as a cover to keep activities secret that ought to be known by citizens.

As well as employing targeted killings in Afghanistan and Libya where the U.S. has been involved in combat the U.S. has also attempted to kill targets in at least four other countries. Approximately 300 attacks have been made in Pakistan, 20 in Somalia, 30 in Yemen and apparently one in Syria. While most of these attacks are by drones, they have also used cruise missiles launched by ships and aircraft. Others are conducted by AC-130 gunships and special operations forces.

Estimates vary but around three thousand people have been killed in these attacks including Al Qaeda suspects and local militants plus an unknown number of civilians. These activities are what Zenko calls America's Third War. Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars there has been little oversight or debate in congress about this war. There are no time lines ever discussed as to when it might end, no coherent strategy and no transparency.

Although claims are made that drone attacks are made only under very strict conditions there is no transparency that would allow this to be verified. In fact attempts to gain information are blocked on grounds of national security. Even the very existence of the Pakistan attacks are still not admitted even though everyone knows who is responsible.

The continuing policy of keeping citizens in the dark about the Third War is indefensible and contrary to the need for the U.S. government to be accountable. While keeping what is happening secret the administration nevertheless crows about its success as happened when Obama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan or Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. For more see the full article. That the Third War may be counter productive and produce virulent anti-Americanism and more militants never seems to be seriously considered.

More U.S. drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia

The new emphasis on drone attacks in areas where the U.S.engages only in covert operations has been evident in the last few days. This article at longwarjournal covers attacks in Yemen and this article in Press TV covers attacks in Somalia.

According to the first article U.S. drone attacks killed five AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula). A vehicle with the fighters in it was traveling near the town of Karma near the city of Assan in Shabwa province. The city of Azzan has been under AQAP control since June last year. The city of Zinjibar in Abyan province was also seized by Ansar Al Sharia.

The U.S. has stepped up strikes in Yemen carrying out four already this month. In March there were at least six strikes. Obviously the tempo of strikes is increasing. There are also Special Forces units on the ground but nothing has been said recently about them.

According to Press TV at least 31 people were killed in recent attacks near the town of Afmadow. A Somali military official confirmed the attack. The UN has condemned the drone attacks saying the are a threat to international law. The Obama administration is stepping up covert operations as it winds down conventional military operations in Afghanistan. The U.S. is resorting more and more to what Juan Cole calls shadow power.

Targets widened for drone attacks.

The widening of targets has been done with absolutely no publicity or discussion on the political ramifications nor the consequences for civilian casualties. The Obama administration is just as bad on this matter as Bush if not moreso. There has been some discussion of what laws might apply and how the attacks might be justified but nothing about proportionately nor has the information requested been granted. This is from latimes.

latimes.com

CIA drones have broader list of targets

The agency since 2008 has been secretly allowed to kill unnamed suspects in Pakistan.

By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times

8:37 PM PDT, May 5, 2010

Reporting from Washington


The CIA received secret permission to attack a wider range of targets, including suspected militants whose names are not known, as part of a dramatic expansion of its campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan's border region, according to current and former counter-terrorism officials.

The expanded authority, approved two years ago by the Bush administration and continued by President Obama, permits the agency to rely on what officials describe as "pattern of life" analysis, using evidence collected by surveillance cameras on the unmanned aircraft and from other sources about individuals and locations.

The information then is used to target suspected militants, even when their full identities are not known, the officials said. Previously, the CIA was restricted in most cases to killing only individuals whose names were on an approved list.

The new rules have transformed the program from a narrow effort aimed at killing top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders into a large-scale campaign of airstrikes in which few militants are off-limits, as long as they are deemed to pose a threat to the U.S., the officials said.

Instead of just a few dozen attacks per year, CIA-operated unmanned aircraft now carry out multiple missile strikes each week against safe houses, training camps and other hiding places used by militants in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

As a matter of policy, CIA officials refuse to comment on the covert drone program. Those who are willing to discuss it on condition of anonymity refuse to describe in detail the standards of evidence they use for drone strikes, saying only that strict procedures are in place to ensure that militants are being targeted. But officials say their surveillance yields so much detail that they can watch for the routine arrival of particular vehicles or the characteristics of individual people.

A Critique of the U.S. drone program.

There are not that many extended critiques of the drone program but here is one from Lebanon by two lawyers. They do not seem to be aware that just recently there has been a short defense of the program by one of Obama's legal beagles (Koh) and it is precisely along the lines that this article shows does not hold water. This is from the DailyStar(Lebanon)

The ongoing American Predator attacks are illegal and immoral
By Ali Ezzatyar and Shahpur Kabraji


There was a news item recently of the kind we’ve heard dozens of times during the past few years: A US Predator drone had killed eight militants in a hideout in North Waziristan, but the identities of the militants weren’t known. Since Barack Obama became president of the United States, stories like this one have only become more frequent.

Unmanned and invisible, the Predator drones floating over Afghanistan and Pakistan (and elsewhere) have been described by the CIA director, Leon Panetta, as the “only game in town.” Armed with Hellfire missiles, with their connotation of divine retribution, Predator attacks (and the associated death toll) have risen dramatically the past three years. And many, maybe even most, of those killed are innocent civilians.

To much of the world, the treatment of Guantanamo detainees and American policies on torture are the standards by which Obama’s willingness to break from President George W. Bush’s legacy are being measured. The Obama administration’s decision to continue – and increase – the use of Predator drones generally isn’t considered. But it should be.

There are two major, unresolved legal problems with these strikes. In some cases they violate the sovereignty of independent countries. And in all cases, they result in assassinations that have no apparent legal basis, clearly violating the human rights of their victims. Illegal, immoral and strategically flawed, the strikes do significant damage to America’s image across the globe and its ability to address terrorism at its root, societal level.

Due to a long-standing US executive order banning assassinations, the US government has done its best to dance around that description, all the while refusing to make available for examination the intelligence that prompts lethal attacks on suspected terrorists. But without the presentation of evidence or the opportunity of trial for the targeted, we should call these attacks what they are: extrajudicial assassinations.

The US government has not distinguished the use of Predator drones from the general context of fighting “combatants” in an armed conflict. The reality is that the targeted individuals do not fit, legally or logically, in the category of combatants in a sustained conflict. Drones do not seek assassination of individuals engaged in active combat; those it kills are generally far removed from the war zone and disconnected from any chain of command – so the context of armed conflict does not apply.

The only potential basis for killing militants outside of the war zone is the customary law of self-defense. In other words where there is an imminent threat of future attack. Killing a terrorist mastermind who planned a prior attack would not qualify as self-defense. So far, eyewitness and investigative accounts suggest there is no evidence to support that those assassinated were involved in planning imminent attacks, even if the term “imminent” were to be interpreted liberally. To be clear, the US government has never tried to justify its use of Predator drones on a legal basis. The fact that the CIA, a civilian agency, and not the military is the party pulling the trigger in many of these cases also complicates matters.

These assassinations are shortcuts with a cavalier disregard for legality. If the intelligence does not ultimately establish that these individuals are legal targets, as it appears it does not, responsible officials would be committing war crimes. What does that mean for the America?

The killings themselves, when taking place on foreign soil that is not occupied by the US, are also part of another layer of legal complexity involving sovereignty. These strikes by the CIA against individuals in sovereign countries represent the use of force by one nation state against the civilians of another – a use of force proscribed by the United Nations Charter. One rebuttal advanced by the United States is that the national government concerned has consented to such action. However, for example in the case of Pakistan, the national government regularly denies giving such consent. Drone attacks in countries not occupied by the US and with which the US is not at war are violations of the sovereignty of these nations and are illegal according to the international treaties the US has ratified.

The use of drones to carry out missile strikes against individuals in another country, if carried out by Iran, North Korea or Yemen would cause international outrage. The fact that these attacks are carried out by the CIA does not change the rule of law to which the United States and all other signatories to the UN Charter are subject.



The strikes also allow extreme but nevertheless popular elements of civil society in the target country to argue that their supine government has once again abrogated all responsibility in the face of American pressure. This lends further credence to sentiments in certain portions of that country’s local media, as we see in Pakistan, that American actions are a war on Muslims, on the tribal way of life, and on Pakistan’s culture and traditions under the guise of a war on terrorism. This becomes all the more convincing when the remoteness and clinical nature of the attacks harms civilians.

We know that elements of the civilian population in Pakistan and Afghanistan are harboring militants. It is equally undeniable that this civilian population is unlikely to feel any sympathy whatsoever for the political aims of Washington when the only face of those aims they see is the business end of a Hellfire missile. These populations must be convinced that by harboring terrorists within their community they undermine their own chances for peace and prosperity. The numbers of innocents killed by terrorists should demonstrate this without question, but when hundreds are also killed as “collateral damage,” it is not surprising that the message is lost. Kill one innocent farmer, create a village of anti-Americans.

However, the most important problem relating to these assassinations is not a legal one at all. It is one that is morally significant for America as a nation and that will continue to pose practical problems for its ongoing struggle against terrorism in the Muslim world. Individuals are being sentenced to death from on high by non-judicial bodies with no inherent authority to carry out such acts. This perpetuates the image that America is an insincere hegemon that devalues the lives of people in the region.

The war against Islamic extremists is framed, by both sides to the conflict, as a war of the free against the oppressive, and the fair against the unfair. The US claims a moral high ground over terrorists who employ the murder of innocents as a means to an end. It is no surprise that in societies in which suspected terrorists reside, there is no sympathy for the argument that the US can kill as it deems fit while its opponents cannot. Either the US believes in universal human rights, even for terrorists, or it does not.

Drone strikes are sending a signal to the world that the US believes itself to be subject to a different standard in its ability to determine right from wrong. In addition to being antithetical to the notion of fairness, it is precisely the opposite message that the US has an interest in sending. At the moment, very few outside of the United States, including in Europe, are buying it. In the broader Middle East, if people are asked to choose between Americans and fellow Muslims as to who has more of a right to carry out arbitrary attacks, the US will doubtless lose what remaining support it still enjoys. Why then should we be surprised, or outraged, when terrorists use unconventional and murderous techniques to advance their causes?

Was there any real doubt about whether or not the Nazi leaders and generals tried at Nuremberg were guilty? Would anyone have kicked up a fuss if those who stood trial were instead summarily executed, as was considered at the time? The more important question is, what was the legacy, for Germany and the world, of those trials? Terrorism may be a faceless enemy, but its perpetrators live in societies caught in a war of ideas.

Given the confluence of morality and practicality in this debate, how does one explain the relative lack of attention and outcry in the US with respect to the extrajudicial assassinations? It would appear that the absence of contact with the suspected terrorists has begotten an out of sight, out of mind approach to the act.

Uproar about the treatment and trial of suspects at Guantanamo Bay marred Bush’s presidency and became a huge talking point of the Obama presidency. Similarly, the use of certain techniques, like water-boarding which were akin to torture, was suspended by the new US president due to widespread protest. It must also follow that the policy of assassinating individuals is an unacceptable policy for a US government that purports to be, both domestically and abroad, a trendsetter when it comes to justice.



Ali Ezzatyar is an American lawyer practicing in Paris, as well as a writer and consultant on geopolitical issues, mostly relating to the Middle East. Shahpur Kabraji, the first Pakistani president of the Cambridge Union, is a lawyer based in London, and a part-time journalist. They wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.



Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=113666#ixzz0l1UKbK6m
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)