Drone first, ask questions later

In a speech at the National Defense University on May 23, 2013, President Obama framed his administration’s counterterrorism strategy, paying particular attention to the lethal use of unmanned drone bombers. He addressed both moral and legal interests, as well as concerns over congressional oversight of America’s drone program.

The President’s speech was riddled with just as much inaccuracy as one might expect from the head of what is, in light of recent scandals, considered by many to be the most corrupt administration in American history. However, one particular passage stands out

“The use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists – our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty.”

Considering that in just Pakistan alone, in almost four and a half years Obama’s administration has administered at least six times as many drone strikes and subsequently killed more than four times as many people as the Bush administration did in eight years, characterizing Obama’s drone program as “heavily constrained” is like saying the actor Nicholas Cage’s willingness to accept career killing roles is also “heavily constrained.” Neither is true, but at least with the latter no innocent lives were ever taken.

It may be true that many individuals targeted by drones were located in well-fortified facilities that would have proposed significant challenges were live military personnel sent in to capture those targets. But in cases too numerous to count, targets were located in relatively unfortified tribal territories or had no protection other than their vehicle which was traveling down an unguarded road or passing through a civilian village. So in those cases, why use drones if an armed extraction team could have completed the task? Could it be that this administration’s real preference is to drone first and ask questions later?

As amusing as it is to hear President Obama pay lip service to any notion of state sovereignty, either foreign or domestic, digging into the content of the speech raises questions as to who exactly these partners by whom America is held in-check are? Pakistan certainly isn’t among them, considering Pakistani officials describe the American use of drones as “counter-productive, contrary to international law, a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Given Obama’s record, the United Nations might be one entity to which he might be referring, however, commenting on an official UN statement on Obama’s drone program given in March of 2013, Legal Director of Reprieve had this to say

“The UN’s statement today is an unequivocal warning that the CIA drone program is not only completely unwanted by the Pakistani government but is irrefutably illegal. More worryingly, it is shredding apart the fabric of life in Pakistan, terrorizing entire communities. The Special Rapporteur’s job is to balance the need for counter-terrorism with the need to protect basic human rights – what he has revealed today is that this balance is far, far from being achieved.”

So while the President may prefer to have Americans view him as the level-headed “team player” on the international basketball court, with the UN now clearly siding against him on the issue of drones, it shouldn’t take long to find out “how long our actions are [or are not] bound by consultations with partners” and just what arrogant ball-hogs Obama and his administration really are. And in light his administration’s recent incidents, perhaps Obama should take a break from bombing other human beings-- including American citizens --without so much as a trial or arrest, and focus on issues a little closer to home.

‍