Debate Club

Brennan and Obama's Drone Playbook Must Be Debated Publicly

By SHARE

John Brennan has said U.S. drone policy is "establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of them [read China, Russia, Iran] will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians." He's right. Drone technology is proliferating faster than norms to govern it, so U.S. practice is setting the rules of the road by default. That's a problem.

Drones are not inherently wrong. Targeted killing in wartime is always preferable to its opposite—indiscriminate killing. But lethal targeting is lawful in very limited circumstances outside of wartime, and for good reason. The United States now relies so heavily on drones for its counterterrorism strategy (some would say it has become the strategy) that it is twisting the concept of "war" and the definitions of "imminent threat" and "infeasibility of capture" designed to ensure that war is an exceptional state of affairs, and that lethal force outside of war is used as a last resort to interrupt immediate threats.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

The leaked "white paper" says someone can be deemed an "imminent threat" even if there is no "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." Capture can be deemed "infeasible" if "it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." But again, for good reason, the law does not permit killing a suspect simply because capture may be more difficult later or the country where he is won't let us in to capture him.

Nobody disputes that the president has the right—and the responsibility—to protect Americans from imminent threats. Sadly, the world is filled with "bad guys" who wish Americans ill, and some will eventually hatch plots that could become an imminent threat. But few would want to empower this—or any—president with the authority to go around disposing of "bad guys" about whom we have no clear evidence that they are currently plotting to kill Americans.

At his confirmation hearing, Brennan should begin a robust debate with Congress and the American public about the proposed drone playbook and the rules governing the policy he has overseen. It's important to do that now, before the precedent established sends us down a road we would not want other nations to follow.

Dixon Osburn

About Dixon Osburn Director of Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program

Tags
John Brennan
Obama, Barack
drones
national security
terrorism
Congress

Other Arguments

#2
29 Pts
Obama's Drone Policy Has No Safeguards Against Abuse

Yes – Obama's Drone Policy Has No Safeguards Against Abuse

Rosa Brooks Fellow at the New America Foundation

#3
23 Pts
Department of Justice 'White Paper' Full of Contradictions

Yes – Department of Justice 'White Paper' Full of Contradictions

Alexa Koenig Executive Director of University of California-Berkeley's Human Rights Center.

#5
-16 Pts
Obama's Drone Problem Is Its Convoluted Semantics

No – Obama's Drone Problem Is Its Convoluted Semantics

William F. Daddio Professor at Georgetown University

#6
-16 Pts
Obama's Drone Policy Is Necessary to Keep the U.S. Safe

No – Obama's Drone Policy Is Necessary to Keep the U.S. Safe

Daniel J. Gallington Senior Policy and Program Adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute i

#7
-18 Pts
The Alternatives to Drone Strikes Are Worse

No – The Alternatives to Drone Strikes Are Worse

James Lewis Director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

You Might Also Like


See More