<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="">November 24, 2012</div>
<h1>Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_shane/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by SCOTT SHANE"><span>SCOTT SHANE</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama" class="">President Obama</a>
might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the
weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted
killing of terrorists by unmanned <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about unmanned aerial vehicles." class="">drones</a>, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials. </p>
<p>
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with <a title="The Long War Journal Web site" href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php">more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed</a> by the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the Central Intelligence Agency." class="">Central Intelligence Agency</a>
and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration
is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal
uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is
justified. </p>
<p>
Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control
killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to
the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied
governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from
controlling territory. </p>
<p>
Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of
drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense
Department and the C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to
carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials,
and the president’s counterterrorism adviser, <a title="Times Topics - John O. Brennan." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_o_brennan/index.html?8qa">John O. Brennan</a>, have argued for restraint, officials involved in the discussions say. </p>
<p>
More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded
many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international
law. For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States
routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel,
and most countries still object to such measures. </p>
<p>
But since the first targeted killing by the United States in 2002, two
administrations have taken the position that the United States is at war
with Al Qaeda and its allies and can legally defend itself by striking
its enemies wherever they are found. </p>
<p>
Partly because United Nations officials know that the United States is
setting a legal and ethical precedent for other countries developing
armed drones, the U.N. plans to open a unit in Geneva early next year to
investigate American drone strikes. </p>
<p>
The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after <a title="Times article on "kill list." " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html">news reports on the drone program</a>,
started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama,
revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures
for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national
security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the
president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a
course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that
Mitt Romney might win the presidency. </p>
<p>
“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,”
said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing
debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want
to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said.
The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had
Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the
official said. </p>
<p>
Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the
legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress. </p>
<p>
“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place,
and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that
not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of
the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an <a title="Video of "The Daily Show" appearance by President Obama, Oct. 18." href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/exclusive---barack-obama-extended-interview-pt--1">appearance on “The Daily Show”</a> on Oct. 18. </p>
<p>
In an interview with Mark Bowden for a new book on the killing of Osama bin Laden, “<a title="Times review of "The Finish." " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/books/review/the-finish-the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-by-mark-bowden.html?pagewanted=all">The Finish</a>,”
Mr. Obama said that “creating a legal structure, processes, with
oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons, is going to be a
challenge for me and my successors for some time to come.” </p>
<p>
The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose
to policy makers. “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to
think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing
security problems,” he said. </p>
<p>
Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for
targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court,
fighting lawsuits filed by the <a title="A.C.L.U. Web site." href="http://www.aclu.org/">American Civil Liberties Union</a>
and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted
killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence
of the drone program in Pakistan. </p>
<p>
But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature
of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking
leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States.
That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a <a title="President Obama discusses drones on CNN." href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/obama-reflects-on-drone-warfare/">CNN interview in September</a>
that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the
United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United
States.” </p>
<p>
But for at least two years in Pakistan, partly because of the C.I.A.’s
success in decimating Al Qaeda’s top ranks, most strikes have been
directed at militants whose main battle is with the Pakistani
authorities or who fight with the Taliban against American troops in <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo" title="More news and information about Afghanistan." class="">Afghanistan</a>. </p>
<p>
In Yemen, some strikes apparently launched by the United States killed
militants who were preparing to attack Yemeni military forces. Some of
those killed were wearing suicide vests, according to Yemeni news
reports. </p>
<p>
“Unless they were about to get on a flight to New York to conduct an
attack, they were not an imminent threat to the United States,” said <a title="Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations." href="http://www.cfr.org/experts/national-security-conflict-prevention/micah-zenko/b15139">Micah Zenko</a>,
a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is a critic of the
strikes. “We don’t say that we’re the counterinsurgency air force of
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but we are.” </p>
<p>
Then there is the matter of strikes against people whose identities are unknown. In an <a title="President Obama’s online video chat, January 2012." href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/30/president-obama-hangs-out-america">online video chat</a>
in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted,
focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But
for several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in addition to
“personality strikes” against named terrorists, the C.I.A. and the
military have carried out “signature strikes” against groups of
suspected, unknown militants. </p>
<p>
Originally that term was used to suggest the specific “signature” of a
known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting
place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in
general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by
extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the greatest conflict
inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether
killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local
backlash. </p>
<p>
Many people inside and outside the government have argued for far
greater candor about all of the strikes, saying excessive secrecy has
prevented public debate in Congress or a full explanation of their
rationale. Experts say the strikes are deeply unpopular both in Pakistan
and Yemen, in part because of allegations of large numbers of civilian
casualties, which American officials say are exaggerated. </p>
<p>
Gregory D. Johnsen, author of “<a title="The New York Review of Books article about "The Last Refuge." " href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/dec/06/jihadis-yemen/?pagination=false">The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al Qaeda and America’s War in Arabia</a>,” argues that the strike strategy is backfiring in Yemen. “In Yemen, Al Qaeda is actually expanding,” Mr. Johnsen said in a <a title="Gregory D. Johnsen participates in discussion at Brookings Institution." href="http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/11/13-yemen">recent talk at the Brookings Institution</a>, in part because of the backlash against the strikes. </p>
<p>
<a title="Shuja Nawaz’s Atlantic Council Web page." href="http://www.acus.org/users/shuja-nawaz">Shuja Nawaz</a>,
a Pakistan-born analyst now at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said
the United States should start making public a detailed account of the
results of each strike, including any collateral deaths, in part to
counter propaganda from jihadist groups. “This is a grand opportunity
for the Obama administration to take the drones out of the shadows and
to be open about their objectives,” he said. </p>
<p>
But the administration appears to be a long way from embracing such
openness. The draft rule book for drone strikes that has been passed
among agencies over the last several months is so highly classified,
officials said, that it is hand-carried from office to office rather
than sent by e-mail. </p>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>