The Drone Nation
by Joseph Camacho
We are in the era of a new kind of war. In places that our government does not recognize that we are engaged in conflict – there is another type of warfare being waged. Those that declare war against the US are meeting this (not-so) secret war-fighter when and where they least expect it. The drone. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles that are equipped with surveillance and munitions capabilities and have been used in the fight against world wide extremism. Two serious questions I address are about the constitutionality of the use of drones against US citizens and the concern of which is the proper department of government to control them.
I understand that we are a nation at war. I understand that there are many benefits to using drones in place of US personnel in making these strikes. I understand that drones are (likely) the asset of choice moving forward. I understand the importance of national security.
Here’s what I don’t understand: Why is this being run by the CIA and not the Department of Defense?
It seems like it has been a long time since the news has broadcasted John McCain saying something seemingly reasonable, and here I agree with him. The not-so-secret CIA drone program has been striking our enemies abroad since the last administration and under this president it has increased significantly under the CIA. The CIA is an intelligence gathering organization. However, the mission of the CIA allows for “conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.” While this language allows for directed actions to be taken, was the CIA intended to carry out a sustained war as part of the covert action the mission statement refers to?
Without being a legal scholar, this tells me two things. One, that the CIA does not conduct these operations as a basic function, because they must be specifically directed by the President. And two, that the CIA is in fact fighting a war on behalf of the US in the so-called War on Terror. This war, without passing judgement on its merit, should be fought through our war-making department, the department of defense.
The robust oversight of the DOD would make for a more transparent and accountable government and more true to the promise that this President made after being elected. Sure, there have been measures that have been taken that do signal more accountability, but waging a secret war without the consent of Congress under the auspice of an intelligence agency does not give me the warm and fuzzy of a government that is doing the right thing.
Another issue with this program is the that this administration has found it to be legal to assassinate US citizens that they deem a threat to national security. In a white paper reported by NBC/MSNBC the legal footing for killing an American citizen abroad falls under three imperatives:
1. the individual(s) pose an imminent threat. (More on what “imminent” means later)
2. the individual(s) capture is infeasible, still being monitored to see if capture is possible.
3. the individual(s) would be engaged under existing laws in regards to war.
Under those criteria the executive branch has determined that it is constitutional to kill an American citizen abroad in (or out of) a war zone. It goes on to say is that the determination of what is imminent is defined in a manner which does not seem to be consistent with the actual definition of the word.
Imminent: likely to occur at any moment.
The way the administration has defined the word imminent should concern the American people. Page seven (7) of the white paper says explicitly that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
How can we know who a person is, where they are, and that they’re a threat without having the intelligence verifying hardly any more than that? And if we do know these things, then we’ve been following them for some time in order to come to this conclusion. And if we’ve been doing that, then we’ve had enough time to act under the self imposed guidelines of the aforementioned three imperatives: because we’ve been monitoring them and concluded capture is not an option.
So what can we do from here?
The courts currently have a process in place which protects us from unreasonable search and seizures and violations of due process and our privacy against illegal wiretaps by our government in the name of national security. This process includes getting a warrant from a special body called the FISA court, which is a federal court that grants requests for domestic wiretaps on a case-by-case basis in very short amounts of time. If you need a domestic wiretap and can’t wait for the standard warrant process to play out because it’s an emergency, don’t fret because you can get a FISA warrant on the ASAP. Why can’t we institute an emergency court to review the circumstances in which an American citizen would be subject to lethal force by our own government? Isn’t that more of an abuse of civil liberties than wiretapping?
The Constitution guarantees due process and protection against being deprived of your own life, which this policy circumvents. As it stands in many states the court has the ability to deprive you of your life through the judicial process. If we adopted a FISA-like court to review the case against taking an individuals life while abroad this would allow the administration to be as transparent as it says it was going to be. Why should we take their word for it that they had to kill someone? Especially if it were, say, me.
In 2010, a federal district court (San Francisco) found that warrant-less wiretapping was not legal, and the expedited FISA court process is a reasonable step for any administration to take when the question of constitutional rights are before us. It seems to me that the question of whether or not your government can kill you deserves at least as much scrutiny as whether or not they can read your email.
Sure, it’s not necessarily you or I that will be impacted by this decision, but what is a violation to one is a violation to all. The expanding power of the executive branch – which did not start with this President – is going unchecked and justified merely by a legal opinion. Yeah, and water-boarding wasn’t torture either, right?
This could be mitigated if we enacted legislation requiring a court to review these decisions of constitutional rights, as we do with domestic wiretapping. With Congress making laws and the courts granting (or not granting) requests, this would enable all three branches of government to have a hand in this process and ensuring the constitutionality of the practice of taking the life of an American citizen – not matter how horrible they are. Those Americans who would conspire to take innocent life while abroad still deserve every opportunity to be processed legally, and if that is not possible they should be neutralized, with great care taken to protect the lives and property of the innocents in the country in which they are living.
We can do this, and we should, because a government that can tell itself that it’s legal to kill its citizens is truly on a slippery-slope to tyranny.
Joseph Camacho is a student pursuing a degree in political science and history and lives in the San Francisco bay area. He is a father, husband, a veteran and an active member of his community. Joseph’s vision is to engage people that have given up on politics – or those who are philosophers in their own mind – in a dialogue about the issues that impact our lives. This is cross posted from his blog The Moderate Nation.