Pete Wehner makes a fair point in dinging President Obama for hypocrisy because Obama once expressed outrage over the Bush administration’s use of torture (euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques”) while now defending the legality of his own policy of ordering the targeted killing of al-Qaeda members even if they’re U.S. citizens. There is no judicial review in either policy–and the latter results in death rather than discomfort.
But I’d much rather that the president be hypocritical than wrong on the issue of targeted killings. In this case I think he deserves applause for taking the right stance in spite of the criticism from some of his own supporters in the “human rights” lobby. (I use quote marks because groups like Amnesty International seldom if ever recognize that actions taken by Western states to defend themselves against terrorist attacks are a defense of the basic right to live without fear of assault.)
Drone strikes are by no means risk free, the biggest risk being that by killing innocent civilians they will cause a backlash and thereby create more enemies for the U.S. than they eliminate. There is no doubt that some of these strikes have killed the wrong people–as the New York Times account highlights in one incident in Yemen. There is also little doubt, moreover, that drone strikes are no substitute for a comprehensive counterinsurgency and state-building policy designed to permanently safeguard vulnerable countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Mali from the incursions of radical jihadists. But drone strikes have been effective in disrupting al-Qaeda operations and they have been conducted with less collateral damage and more precision than in the past.
It is hard to assess what impact they have had on public opinion in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan, but there is at least as much evidence that these strikes are applauded by locals who are terrorized by al-Qaeda thugs as there is evidence that the strikes are reviled for killing fellow clansmen. As the Times notes: “Although most Yemenis are reluctant to admit it publicly, there does appear to be widespread support for the American drone strikes that hit substantial Qaeda figures like Mr. Shihri, a Saudi and the affiliate’s deputy leader, who died in January of wounds received in a drone strike late last year.”
Given the need to continue these drone strikes, it would be silly and self-destructive to grant certain al-Qaeda figures immunity just because they happen to have American citizenship. In past wars such as the U.S. Civil War and World War II the U.S. military never hesitated to kill or capture enemy combatants simply because they happened to hold American citizenship. Why should today be any different?
Obviously the U.S. government is not going to engage in targeted killings on our home soil, and there is no need to do so–al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S. can always be arrested. That’s not the case in Pakistan or Yemen, where the alternative is typically either to let them go or kill them in a drone strike. The Justice Department memo leaked to NBC News, which justifies such attacks, seems to me a model of careful legal reasoning which preserves the commander-in-chief’s authority to wage war on our enemies without trampling on civil liberties at home.
“This is a chilling document,” says an ACLU lawyer (predictably). No, it’s not. It’s an encouraging document. It shows that, however committed Obama may be to a policy of retrenchment abroad and to dangerous cuts in defense spending, he is still willing to doing what it takes to defend us from al-Qaeda and its ilk.
Do you believe the "imminence" standard was met in the Awlaki killing? I don't see that requirement as necessary. But if it's one that the White House believes is necessary I can't see it being met. Unless one bends "imminence" all out of shape n nSecond, I would like to see some sort of codification of these requirements. What one Administration says today may not be said by another Administration tomorrow. "Men are not angels" Madison said. That view of human nature is the best starting point when discussing the powers and scope of government. n nTrust but codify (sorry Mr. Reagan).
The process is correct but the lack of oversight is not! Obamao could wipe out his enemies without consequence because of the lack of oversight!
This is more nonsensical, knee-jerk clap-trap from none other than Commentary's king of knee-jerk, Max Boot. Obama in a typical, cowardly liberal fashion substituted remote ops, "bloodless", "soundless" killing for appropriate response using America's military, political and moral power (which Obama hates almost as much as America's businesses); and cannot be compared with bravery, both individual on the battlefield, and moral and political, by America's leaders in wars past.
Instead of name calling why not try responding to the specifics of the issue? n nThanks.
The "specific of the issue" is that Obama administration is indiscriminately killing American citizens.
Wingnuts will even side with terrorists rather than Obama.
Obama's whimsical drive-by drone-bombing campaign –in which the administration callously deems anyone in the blast radius a "terrorist"– has resulted in numerous non-combatant deaths, including many more children than died at Sandy Hook. If this had been done by a Republican, you and people like you would be up on your soapboxes screaming your moral outrage. Obama wouldn't dare make a terrorist captive uncomfortable, lest his progressivist base wet themselves in solipsistic sympathy for the terrorist. But out of sight is out of mind, and the hypocrites on the left will give this sickening excuse for a man a pass no matter what he does, so long as he does it off-stage. And thanks again, Max, for adding to your growing list of absurd policy analyses, and your shameless euphemism-mongering. Targeted killings, my ass: snipers have targets. Drones are bombs, and kill everyone caught in the blast radius. But I suppose for people like you, drones are like gifts: it's the thought that counts.
The next thing that has been suggested is that this drone policy come state side, starting with domestic groups like the Weather under Ground. I could see it happening. Under Obama policy, Bill Ayers and the Black Panthers could have been target by drones.
The criticisms of the Obama Administration's drone strike policy are utterly absurd. Any American citizen who joins an Islamofascist terrorist organization has, in effect, declared war on the United States, thereby forfeiting his constitutional rights and making himself a legitimate military target. As commander-in-chief, the President has a clear constitutional duty to protect this country, including by taking the war to its enemies. Much as I dislike Obama’s hypocrisy—criticizing his predecessor’s actions while channeling his inner George W.— on the substance of the issue he's right.
nDon’t be so sure. Remember that memo that came out from DHS, talking about right wing extremists. Don’t think for one minute that Obama wouldn’t use drones to take out perceived enemies of the state.
Keep watching the skies, goon, you never know! Better still, stay in your bunker.
Be careful. The next fly you go after with a fly swatter could be a drone out to getcha!
President Obama is right on an issues but lack of oversight of the drone process makes me unease.