A leak of a U.S. Justice Department memo has revealed some of the circumstances under which the U.S. government believes it has the right to extrajudicially execute American citizens (Michael Isikoff, “Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans,” NBC News, 4 February 2013):
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The Obama administration’s nominee for director of the CIA, John Brennan, faced questions about the drone killings policy when he appeared before the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday. But Brennan shed little light on the operation of the policy, the other circumstances under which such killings might be ordered, the administration’s arguments concerning the legality of such actions, or the U.S. drone-strike program in general (Mark Mazzetti & Scott Shane, “Drones Are Focus as C.I.A. Nominee Goes Before Senators,” New York Times, 7 February 2013).
For background information on the U.S. drone program, see Cora Currier’s article, “Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes” (ProPublica.org, 11 January 2013).
The Canadian Government is — slowly — pursuing the acquisition of its own drones with “all-weather precision strike capabilities” through its Joint Uninhabited Surveillance and Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) program. While there will probably be very little resemblance between the U.S. drone program and whatever Canada eventually acquires (aside from, possibly, some of the same models of drone), similar issues about where, when, and how to operate them are likely to sometimes arise. What policies will the Harper government put in place regarding the use of armed drones?
Photo credit: US Air Force
February 10, 2013 at 4:03 pm
There is ample ample evidence and well meaning commentary about what is wrong, dum-headed, stupid and futile in the use of violence in resolving conflict at any level of our social hierarchy,personal,community or sovereign. The remedy for the failure of violence to resolve the problem violence that does not work, is more violence. Is there still anyone left on the planet that does not know that? It is the way we record the history of the human specie, War by War. It is definitely the media story line of choice to record the spectacular “effects” of the failures. But never the “cause.” Is there any relationship between the US military use of devices to make the US and the world safe and the gun violence at home in the US? Is there anybody in any position of authority who is willing to talk about that?
Change will never happen from the top down. It will be interesting to see what Social Media and the various forms of Occupy will achieve. Looks like our current best hope. Sure aint religion.
February 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm
It’s readily obvious to any of us here at ceasefire, and i’m sure to the american administration, that killing a terrorist (with or without a drone) is practically futile because they will only be replaced by any number of new terrorists with the vengeance to retaliate. So this exercise in futility can only be justified by concluding there must be ulterior motives to all this carnage. Of course, these motives are kept quiet and the only things revealed to the general public is that “we have to get them before they get us”, or “because they hate us and our values of freedom and democracy”, which is an unbelievable pile of doodoo logic for the naive. The reality of this agenda is for global control of resources and hegemony, as clearly stated in the PNAC document that so many are still not aware of. Why on earth would they be doing this otherwise? What in hell is the justification of maintaining over 750 military bases around the world?
And what could possibly be the canadian government’s raison d’etre for having drones? It can’t be for surveillance. Satellite technology already does that. I doubt if it is for the security of the pipelines, because one misplaced explosion would make an environmental mess. I believe that their acquisition is in line with all the other policies of the harper government and it’s willingness to be kowtowing puppets for the americans, which includes the costly F-35 jets. We have no enemies per se, so all this armament is just an extension of the american sphere of influence and security. As long as we play the game, our chances of being on “the winning side” is guaranteed, and to hell with our values of being peacekeepers. I’m sure i can speak for many of us here in canada that our relationship with the USA is a love/hate relationship on so many levels.
February 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Don McChesney’s comment is pertinent. Mine is that drones should never be equipped to kill, simply (somehow) to warn and/or to report to ground forces. There’ve been “eyes in the sky” over Canada for a very long time now and I expect always will be.
February 8, 2013 at 10:56 pm
I can see drones being used against people that will resort to sabotage to stop the illegal pipeline that is planned to cross through native lands. That for sure could be one potential use for them here in Canada. I suppose they could also be used to safeguard the dike that witholds the sea of toxic waste above the Athabasca River.