I don't often link to Nation of Change articles, but thought that this link to a blog post (Blogger Tom Engelhardt), containing an OpEd (FSO Peter Van Buren), might help lay the basis for discussion of the nexus of drone attacks and leaks of national security information. The same questions are being asked in the Wash Post by Lawyer Katrina vanden Heuvel, who writes a weekly column for The Washington Post and is the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. She dismisses the search for leaks as a smokescreen obscuring the real drama, the President of the United States directly involved in picking targets for drone attacks. Assassinations in the minds of some, legitimate military operations in the minds of others. For those of us who are older it brings to mind the vision of LBJ on his hands and knees, picking targets for Operation ROLLING THUNDER during the Viet-nam war. Whatever happened to plausible deniability?
Let's face it; if this had been Geo "W" Bush, we would have been all over him.
But, this is still an issue to be wrestled to the ground. First, does the US accept that enemy leadership is a legitimate target? If it is, do we understand that this creates a certain reciprocity?
Then there is the question of where the "battlefield" ends when fighting al Qaeda? If Number 2 is in Yemen, is he an acceptable target? If Number 2 is living in the outskirts of Naples, Italy, is it OK to go after him? What about Drum Hill, in Chelmsford, MA? Where is it no longer acceptable to send up a Predator Drone (or send in a covert agent)?
Then there is the question of US Citizenship. What about legal rights? Can they be waived by a procedure developed by the Executive Branch? Does fighting for the "enemy" automatically forfeit US Citizenship?
Finally, if some evil terrorist leader, what about some evil drug lord? If some evil drug lord, what about some slightly less evil drug kingpin? Put another way, once on this slippery path, where do we stop?
We need an open debate on these issues. This is not so much a D vs R issue as one that has come to the fore due to the intersection of technological maturation and geo-political reality.
Regards — Cliff
The nagging part of this problem is, as you so correctly point out, if this had been Dubya, the D's would have been all over him about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm supremely uncomfortable with targeted assassinations for all the possible reasons you outline, and more. Reciprocity alone sows seeds of the next Archduke Ferdinand. That Holder dissembles when asked if these targeted attacks are considered "fair" on US soil and/or against US citizens is reason enough for all responsible citizens to be right and truly terrified.
"Terror", by it's most basic definition, is what we're talking about here, and we are far more potentially evil, because of our capabilities, than those who would otherwise do us harm.