New York Times Editorial
In the more than 16 years since the terror attacks of 9/11, the United States has relied increasingly on drones to kill people away from the battlefield. It has faced few constraints. Now an overdue push for greater accountability and transparency is gathering steam, propelled by growing unease that America’s drones hit targets in countries with whom it is not formally at war, that there are no publicly understood rules for picking targets, and that the strikes may kill innocent civilians and harm, not help, American interests.
Stanley McChrystal, the retired general, has warned that drone strikes are so resented abroad that their overuse could jeopardize America’s broader objectives. The former secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke at his confirmation hearing of the need to make sure that “American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.”
Drones have obvious advantages. The unmanned vehicles, whose controllers may be hundreds of miles away at a remote base, can hover silently over a target for hours, transmitting images and sound, and then strike quickly if needed. The administration says the use of drones has taken many enemy combatants off the battlefield and reduced civilian casualties.
But skeptics abound. John Brennan, the counterterrorism adviser most responsible for the program, when he faced a Senate confirmation hearing as President Obama’s nominee for C.I.A. director was questioned closely about the strikes: their purpose, legal justification and relationship to broader American foreign policy aims.
For years, Mr. Obama stretched executive power to claim that the 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda gave him the unilateral authority to order people, including American citizens, killed away from any battlefield without judicial oversight or public accountability. He took a step in the right direction in 2013 when he directed the Justice Department to give Congressional committees its classified legal advice on targeting Americans.
Officials say they only target belligerents covered by the 2001 legislation, but the public has no way of knowing under what criteria these targets are chosen. Nor does it know, absent publicly stated rules, how the 2001 law will be interpreted by newly-elected President Trump. We await an explanation on whether there is any check on presidential decision-making, especially when American citizens are targeted, and whether targeted killings are creating more militants than they are eliminating.
The White House has said it is still developing rules for when to kill terrorists. Meanwhile, the United States has conducted more than 400 total strikes in at least three countries — Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia — killing more than 3,000 people in its war on Al Qaeda. The majority killed were part of a C.I.A. covert program begun in 2004 and aimed at militants in Pakistan. At a minimum, United States rules should specify that no one can be killed unless actively planning or participating in terror, or helping lead the Taliban in Pakistan or Al Qaeda. Killing should be authorized only when it can be demonstrated that capture is impossible. Standards for preventing the killing of innocents who might be nearby should be detailed and thorough.
Investigators for the United Nations Human Rights Council are busy studying the “exponential rise” in drone strikes in counterterrorism operations. More than 50 nations have or are trying to get the technology. The United States will set the standard for them all.
Based on the lecture “Try To Say Something,” write between 1 and 3 sentences taking a clearly-stated position regarding the United States’ use of drones to kill people away from the battlefield. Avoid any vague language. Be clear, bold, and specific.
Use the Reply field below to record your work.