freeman2 wrote:Even If you think that the drone program is appropriate there are several issues: (1) lack of oversight by Congress, (2) the appropriateness of having the CIA oversee the program rather than the military, and (3) how do you define imminent threat?, (4 ) how do you define membership in a terrorist group? and (5) the appropriateness of violating the sovereignty of another country to kill terrorists (how would we feel if another country sent a drone to kill someone within our borders).

Indeed. I'd like to see Tom's thoughts on these. I would ask for ricky's but I wonder at what baloney will be served up...

I am not "solidly" behind this remember, I only agree the lines are incredibly fuzzy.
Myself, drones would be used for only the most certain circumstances of confirmed terrorists and only in areas that are truly "lawless". I am the first to admit those questions Freeman asked are incredibly hard to answer, this is why I support this tactic only in certain rare situations. I know it's impossible to define these examples but say we could have hit Osama Bin Laden with a drone in Afghanistan ...do it!!!! Don't wait, don't ask questions, just do it! We have taken down "high ranking" al qaeda officials in Yemen ...probably ok with me (but even then, simply labeling someone as "high ranking" is this simply to get away with this sort of thing?? it's all too fishy I know)

So basically I want to look the other way when I know it was the "right" thing to do, I freely admit to being wishy-washy on it!!! And my "support" please understand it's not some sort of blanket approval, you might see me criticize the Prez later for such an attack (the current Democrat pres or the next Prez who will no doubt be a Republican) I reserve that right cause yes I am wishy-washy on the subject no doubt! (sorry but it's an honest answer)

freeman

Even If you think that the drone program is appropriate there are several issues: (1) lack of oversight by Congress, (2) the appropriateness of having the CIA oversee the program rather than the military, and (3) how do you define imminent threat?, (4 ) how do you define membership in a terrorist group? and (5) the appropriateness of violating the sovereignty of another country to kill terrorists (how would we feel if another country sent a drone to kill someone within our borders).

I think the program is only appropriate in narrow circumstance.... And I agree with all these concerns. However, in the case of point 5..... if a nation is deliberately harbouring terroist organizations and will not cooperate in interdicting them.... what is the alternative?


danivon

Secondly, it's incorrect to claim that there is no legal framework or process at all in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. There are. There are governments there, there are forces within those governments who uphold the laws.

Do you really believe that the government of Afghanistan or Pakistan are in a position to effect an arrest on a suspected terrorist hiding out in the frontier? Do you not acknowledge that there are governments that are sympathetic to terror groups, and will if not actively support them, turn a blind eye to their existence... In fact doesn't the Pakistan Military Intelligence essentially sponsor a terrorist group that was responsible for the Mumbai Massacre?
Al Queda existed within Afghanistan since the expulsion of the Russians... The Taliban government not only tolerated the group, but supported it.
The government of Mali isn't in a position to walk into any part of its territory and deal with a terror group. Neither is Yemen..

When Israel decided to act against terrorist Arab groups, they also had a problem where often the terrorrists were living, often openly, in Arab nations out of the reach of international law. They formed anti terroist groups and struck against them despite the international boundaries... The moral swamp was well illustrated in the film Munich.
I fully agree that the controls over the Drone program are probably lax. And they represent an uncivilized solution to what would ideally be a solved through a global legal framework and diplomacy. However, I dispute the notion that there is a realistic legal solution available at all times.
The problem is that we still exist in a globe with 200 nation states, who aren't always willing to accept a global standard of law. By the way, this specifically includes the US.


I find this just stunningly ignorant of the reality of extraordinary rendition as actually happened

I'm well aware of how "extraordinary renditions" were carried out. And you'll note that I said it was criminal in nations where a legal option was present.That would mean almost, but not quite all, known instances. And I consider the situation of the Gitmo detainees illegal treatment as well.
However, I could understand why many should be held, and charged. I deplore the fact that there was no plan in place to deal with the suspects in a fair legal process and we ended up with the mess that it became..
But I understand that some of the detainees were dangerous...And that a long imprisonment may have been deserved by some.

Danivon

I suppose the question is, should the US be the international policeman.

Well, who is the US going to call?
Until there is a Star Trek like world with a global justice system, nations states are still left protecting their own interests...
I deplore much of the history of US international interventions. The Latin American adventures , Viet nam etc. By comparison the Drone program is targeted at individuals . And although I believe it has no business being deployed in nations where the US has the option of a legal process, with a realistic opportunity for success....
there remain times and places where it may be the only recourse to end the impunity of known terrorists. I agree that there has to be a better gauge or higher bar then what seems to be in effect today to define "known". I certainly don't want to sound like Dick Cheney...
But, to give up the option completely, seems unwise. It strikes me that its limited and judicious use is far better at eliminating threats, and demonstrating the power of the US, without the impact of a physical presence. Its a lot better than boots on the ground.

(5) the appropriateness of violating the sovereignty of another country to kill terrorists (how would we feel if another country sent a drone to kill someone within our borders).

I'm not sure this necessarily applies in the case of Pakistan. It seems pretty obvious that the US drone program is operating with the tacit consent of the Pakistani government. It isn't being made explicit of course, but nevertheless it does seem pretty obvious that they're allowing it to go ahead because there are plenty of ways that Pakistan could make it stop if they wanted to (notably by refusing to cooperate with the US in supplying the Afghan bases, ceasing all intelligence sharing etc). They also haven't exactly been vocal in their condemnations have they ? When was the last time Pakistan stood up at the UN and called on the US to be sanctioned for violating their sovereignty ?

On a related point btw, how do you feel about the operation which took out Bin Laden ? This was a much more serious violation of Pakistani sovereignty, involving a commando raid deep into Pakistani territory, an armed assault against a compound that was within a stone's throw of a major Pakistani military facility. It was also most definitely not expected by the Pakistan authorities and could hardly be said to have been carried out with their tacit consent. If you condemn the drone attacks on grounds of sovereignty violation then presumably you feel the same about this ?

sass

It isn't being made explicit of course, but nevertheless it does seem pretty obvious that they're allowing it to go ahead because there are plenty of ways that Pakistan could make it stop if they wanted to (notably by refusing to cooperate with the US in supplying the Afghan bases

If this is true, then how is Pakistan's sovereignty being violated? If Pakistan "condones", even implicitly, the use of drones to eliminate terrorists .... then sovereignty isn't an issue.
A fair legal process.... that would be the complaint that could be justified. Except that by its complicity, Pakistan also implicitly admits that it does not have effective control over the geographical regions where the program is being committed.

As for the Bin Laden action... I understand that a Drone action, or even Cruise missile, was suggested and struck down for a number of reasons...
The numbers of innocent children and women in the compound, and the need to ascertain 100% that they had Bin Laden cornered. If the accounts of the action are accurate, no one was killed who did not offer armed resistance... with perhaps one exception.
Its an instance unlike most Drone attacks, if the recent 5 myths about article in the Washington Post concerning Drones is accurate. Most, Drones have surveilled the targets for days, or weeks or even longer... In the case of Bin Laden, if the movie is accurate, then there was still some doubt.
I also think that, for political purposes, it was judged better to kill Bin Laden then capture him. However, it seems uncertain that the Seal who shot him made a split second decision or whether it might have been predetermined that capture was to be eschewed. ...
Pakistan is not (yet) a modern democracy. The military and the intelligence forces within the military are not fully controlled by the government. The fact that OBL was hiding out almost within sight of Pakistan's "West Point" had to arouse suspicion. Striking at him, this close to that base, also served to send a message to those factions....
I think that scrutiny of the use of drones should be increased. However, based on the kinds of oversight that I see represented in Senate and House hearings ... I wonder about how possible that is? I have more faith that a few dedicated journalists will ensure that a full analysis of Drone Warfare occurs than congress. I mean, Michelle Bachman is on the Intelligence Committee....
I've never thought Obama was a Pollyanna. He's a pragmatist in almost everything. To him, I think Drone war fare is a pragmatic approach to dealing with the problem of terrorists... But I think he is also constrained by his need for a legacy that does not include a focus on the expansion of Drones or other "tactics" that stretch the bounds of the law.
The alternatives to Drones are more costly or resulted in defeat. . When terrorists killed 241 marines in Lebanon, Reagan retreated from involvement there.
The lessons of Iraq, and Afghanistan ....? You can't build nations by invading, destroying much of it and occupying them. And you can't really control nations of that size with relatively small armies of occupation.
On the whole, the Drone option can be very important in ensuring that terrorists cannot find places to operate with impunity. And, as in the case of Pakistan's military or military intelligence, demonstrates to them that they cannot offer that cover to terrorists covertly.
Its a worthwhile weapon. Whether or not its use has always been judicious, I concede should be questioned. Always. But eliminating it as an option over ethical concerns about sovereignty - where sovereignty is nothing but a shield for terrorists - or concerns about the course of justice ...
seems over wrought.
If Pakistan wants the drones to stop striking, they need only ask.... and agree to cooperate in the interdiction of the terrorists.... They aren't doing that, because the Drones serve their needs too.

Do you feel the same way about Israel and it's program of attacking terrorists?

Probably not...

I think you possibly missed my point Ricky. I did actually point out that the sovereignty issue is not clear-cut since Pakistan is apparently consenting to the drone strikes, only for you to repeat my point back at me in more long-winded form as if this was some kind of a rebuttal.

As for the Bin Laden thing, the idea was to see if Freeman is also concerned about the invasion of sovereignty which was involved in his assassination. There are obvious parallels between the two situations but I'm guessing he's a lot less concerned about the raid on Abbottabad than he is about the drone strikes in Waziristan despite the fact that the Pakistan government was much more concerned about it. It just illustrates that this is an ethically ambiguous area.

Sorry Sass. Maybe if I'd typed in Indeed! at the beginning of my rant it would have offered the agreement I intended rather than rebuttal...

bbauska

Do you feel the same way about Israel and it's program of attacking terrorists?

A few years ago, we debated this very issue when Mossad agents took out an Arab terrorist in a hotel in, if I remember correctly, Saudi Arabia... . The terrorist was in the KSA, living secure in the knowledge that the KSA would keep him beyond the reach of International Law, or justice. Then, somewhere on the elevator ride to the 18th floor he discovered he wasn't immune from retribution. I made the same points then about resorting to this tactic when International Law offered no other recourse.
However, Israel isn't just conducting occasional drone strikes or assassinations against terrorists. Each of their actions has to be judged on its individual merits. And some of what they have done has been brutal.
...
I think we're many years away from an International System of justice that can ensure that the necessity for unilateral action like Drone assassinations is entirely unnecessary ... However it is ironic that countries that currently make use of the tactic probably stand in the way of expansion of a world wide justice system more than most.
One thing that has to be noted however... Israel is an outlaw themselves. The existence of most of the West Bank settlements, and their continued expansion is in contravention of several rulings by the World Court. And by other agencies... Even if Israel could appeal to jurisdiction harbouring terrorists, under the auspices of International law, it would represent selective recourse to International law...

The US would find themselves under the microscope of International Law for many actions that have been taken in the past as well. For the moment, I suppose, self defence - is the best rationale offered for the Drone program. However, unless the use of the program is demonstrably limited and each action narrowly justified it runs the risk of losing credibility. And that's probably whats happening now. Are there really that many "known terrorists" who need immediate killing?
In a nutshell, is the oversight really effective?
I doubt it. But that doesn't mean that the program is entirely without value.

So you consider Israel an outlaw. Many consider the US an outlaw as well.

My understanding of the facts is that the ICJ ruled once in 2004 that the wall / fence built by the Israelis is against International Law because it includes parts of the West Bank (where there are settlements) on the Israeli side.

Be fair, RJ, also places where there aren't any settlements. The settlements themselves are not all that legal (Israeli law has been violated in some cases). However, the wall's legality is not related to the legality or morality of an assassination programmme.

I happen to think that such programmes are immoral and should be illegal. The film Munich was mentioned. What the film doesn't really go into is the guy the agents killed through mistaken identity who had no connection. That is always my concern with state-sanctioned murder - the assumption that it's just going to be about gettingbad guys and overconfidence in the infallibility of security services etc.

There is also the "what's sauce for the goose" argument.

There is no doubt that the Bin Laden raid was an intrusion on Pakistani sovereignty, an intrusion even greater than at least a single drone raid. I think US interests outweighed the violation of international law. For one thing, I don't know how Bin Laden could have found shelter in Pakistan without the aid/knowledge of someone fairly high up in Pakistan's government. Regardless, Bin Laden still posed a significant threat to the US and the only sure way to make sure he did not escape was to send in US troops (particularly since it was likely that some elements of the Pakistani government were sympathetic to him). Drone raids to fight lower-level terrorists do not involve the same level of US interests and therefore may not be justifiable. The question is whether the infringed country wants the raids or not (if they do it does not infringe on their sovereignty) Does Pakistan want drone raids or are merely acquiescing to them due to US power? Pakistani impotence in the face of US power may have adverse consequences for the US in the region down the road.

Let me expound, now that I have more time...

Israel is considered an outlaw by some. Israel attacks terrorists via drone strikes. Israel bad because it is in the West Bank.

US is considered an outlaw by some. US attacks terrorists via drone strikes. US bad because of "illegal" war in Iraq.

Now you say that the US needs to have drone strikes beacuse of other countries aren't helping with law. Israel should not have drone strikes because they need to understand the plight of the Palestinian.

I would have to say that the "judging the strikes on individual merit" is exactly what RickyP is NOT doing. He is against Israel doing the same thing because of the West Bank occupation. What part of the drone strike is that?

The dichotomy in RickyP's argument is swirling in my head.

hey, my position is the same for the US and Israel both. so I DO disagree with Ricky ...balance is restored to my world. But I do agree with most of what he had said about the US position so it's still a bit unsettling!

I don't think Ricky did say that actually. What he said was that drone strikes and state sponsored assassinations are only one of the tools that Israel uses and in some cases he can support it but in others he can't.