Debate Club

Has Obama Gone Too Far With His Drone Policies? >

Obama's Drone Policy Has No Safeguards Against Abuse

Drones strikes may be creating more terrorists than they eliminate

February 6, 2013

About Rosa Brooks:

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a fellow at the New America Foundation.

There are two problems with the Obama administration's drone policy. The first problem is that the process for determining who can be targeted contains no meaningful safeguards against abuse or error. According to the administration's legal logic, as evidenced in a recently-released Justice Department white paper written in 2011, any person—including any U.S. citizen—can be targeted and killed overseas if an "informed, high level official" believes the individual being targeted poses an "imminent threat of violent attack" and that capture is not "feasible."

But who's a qualifying "high level official"? What does it mean to be "informed"? What counts as evidence? On what basis is the "feasibility" of capture determined? Does "violent attack" include throwing rocks at a U.S. embassy, or is there some requirement that a potential attack pose a grave threat to U.S. national interests? And, most crucially, what's an "imminent" threat?

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

On this last issue, the Justice Department's 2011 memo is particularly troubling. Both U.S. law and international law normally define the word "imminent" narrowly: You don't get to say you're using force in self defense if the threat is distant or speculative. To the Obama administration, however, the idea of "imminent threat" gets watered down until it's virtually meaningless. The Justice Department's memo asserts that the requirement that a threat be imminent "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." On the contrary: The very absence of clear evidence is offered as a justification for strikes: "[C]ertain members of al Qaeda… would engage in such attacks regularly [if] they were able to do so, [and] the U.S. government may not be aware of all… plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur."

This notion of "imminence" is indistinguishable from the Bush administration's doctrine of so-called "pre-emptive self-defense," a doctrine Barack Obama once firmly repudiated. It's a mighty shaky basis on which to rest the lives of U.S. citizens.

The other problem with the administration's drone policy is strategic. Even if every individual targeted by U.S. drones "deserves" to be targeted, drone strikes can cause civilian casualties and have consistently sparked anti-American sentiment. It's time to ask the same question Donald Rumsfeld asked during the Iraq War: Are we creating new terrorists faster than we can kill them?

Tags:
terrorism,
drones,
national security,
Department of Justice,
Barack Obama
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — Drone policy must be debated openly, as other countries will follow America's example

DIXON OSBURN, Director of Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program

#3

Yes — Protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks is critical but so too is the rule of law

ALEXA KOENIG, Executive Director of University of California-Berkeley's Human Rights Center.

#4
#5
#6
#7

No — Drone strikes work, and threats to the United States necessitate them

JAMES LEWIS, Director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Reader Comments ()

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

Advertisement