November 26, 2012<div id="printbody"><div id="pagebody" class=""><div id="entry-2000000002060219" class="">
<h1 class="">Obama’s Drone Problem</h1>
<div class="">Posted by <cite class=""><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/amy_davidson/search?contributorName=Amy%20Davidson" title="search site for content by Amy Davidson" rel="author">Amy Davidson</a></cite></div>
<div class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<p><img alt="drones-davidson.jpg" src="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/drones-davidson.jpg" class="" style="" height="343" width="465"></p>
<p>A good question, for anyone, is what in your life makes you a little
bit ashamed—what’s the thing you would throw in a closet if someone
visited unexpectedly, the e-mail you would delete first, the pictures
you don’t want anyone to see? It’s an exercise worth going through
before the doorbell rings or your company is audited or some estranged
family member is left to clear out your desk drawers—or before you lose
an election. That thought apparently occurred to Barack Obama and the
people around him. According to a story by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/white-house-presses-for-drone-rule-book.html" target="_blank"><i>Times</i>’ Scott Shane</a>,
there was a scramble in the White House, when it looked like Obama
might lose, to try to write down some rules for when the President could
order targeted assassinations, “so that a new president would inherit
clear standards and procedures.” </p>
<div id="entry-more"><p>Should we take it, then, that Obama had been
having people killed abroad without clear standards and procedures? We
already had a sense that that was the case. (I’ve written about the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html" target="_blank">legal and moral issues with the President’s “kill lists” before</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/kill-or-capture.html" target="_blank">as has Steve Coll</a>. And <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2012/11/26/121126ta_talk_schmidle" target="_blank">Nicholas Schmidle as a Talk story</a>
in last week’s issue about the drone program.) And, as numerous reports
have made clear, there is still no consensus about what the limits
should be—how much “flexibility” a President gets. The Obama
Administration has already approved the killing of an American citizen
living abroad without any judicial proceedings. That was in Yemen, but
why couldn’t it have been in Paris? The targets of the assassination are
referred to as terrorists, but what’s often meant by that is alleged
terrorists, or alleged terrorist associates, or alleged by some other
government to be dangerous in ways more or less defined. Since in some
so-called signature strikes, carried out by drones, we are not killing
people whose names we even know, but ones who are behaving in ways that
fit a certain profile, the right phrase might be “suspected bad-guy
character.” Or something—our targets are frequently no clearer than our
standards. Meanwhile, the strikes kill and displace civilians, and earn
us enemies and distrust.</p>
<p>It apparently took some bad polls in swing states for the
Administration to begin to confront the situation—except that then Obama
won, with the result, Shane writes, that “the matter may have lost some
urgency.” If Obama thinks that there’s room for delay, he’s making a
mistake. A first term hasn’t yet been enough to close Guantánamo, and
long enough to get some very bad practices codified. Eight years pass
almost as quickly as four. </p>
<p>For a brief moment, though, someone in the Administration apparently
pictured Romney sitting down and doing what Obama had been doing, and
worried. But even then, did they see the scene for the mess it was?
“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” an
Administration official told Shane. That concern will have been wasted
if it is taken as a reflection only on the hands, and not on the levers.
Did idea that some Presidents are better than others at deciding whom
to kill cause anyone to feel smug rather than abashed? When it comes to
“kill lists,” Obama’s weakness has been to act as though the clarity of
his judgment is the same thing as a clear standard; perhaps the thought
of losing gave him a sense that this wasn’t the case. But what was most
vivid for those in the present Administration, in their vision of
President Romney haphazardly dispatching drones? Their distrust of
Obama’s successor, or embarrassment about what they might be leaving,
unattended to, on the Oval Office desk?</p></div></div><br><div class="">
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="AMS_NYR_CONTENTPAGE_TEXTOFFER">
<span class="">To get more of <em>The New Yorker</em>'s signature mix of politics, culture and the arts: <strong><a href="https://w1.buysub.com/loc/NYR/ATGFailsafe" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" title="Subscribe to The New Yorker">Subscribe Now</a></strong></span>
</div>
<div id="comments_nyr_2000000002060219" class="">
<h4 id="comments">omments</h4>
<div class="">
<form method="get" action="" id="frmSubmitComment_nyr_2000000002060219">
<textarea cols="58" rows="10" name="text" class="" id="commentText_nyr_2000000002060219"></textarea>
<input src="http://www.newyorker.com/css/i/pluck/submit_btn.gif" name="submit" value="submit" class="" id="frmPostBtn_nyr_2000000002060219" type="image">
</form>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="statsHolder">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com" target="_blank">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
Greenwald on the new drone story:<br><br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/obama-drones-kill-list-framework" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/obama-drones-kill-list-framework</a><br>
<br>On praise for their leaders when they do this:<br><br>'It is, for several reasons, extraordinary that so many citizens have
been successfully trained to so venerate their Party's leaders that they
literally believe no checks or transparency are necessary, even as
those leaders wield the most extremist powers: executing people, bombing
multiple countries, imprisoning people with no charges, mass monitoring
and surveilling of entire communities.'<br><br>Sunil<br><br><div><div></div><hr>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:53:29 -0800<br>From: <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy<div><div class="h5"><br><br>
<div><br>
Why didn't they start trying to codify this *before* the first
drone strike, instead of waiting until Romney was possibly about
to take over?<br>
<br>
There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Why
didn't our constitutional scholar of a president question this
"signature" assassination thing? Why didn't he question the idea
of assassination as a military tool, to begin with?<br>
<br>
Oh, and I loved this bit:<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
So much for his promises of an open and transparent government.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 11/25/2012 08:12 AM, Art Deco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank"><img alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1">
<div>November 24, 2012</div>
<h1>Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy</h1>
<h6>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" target="_blank"><span>SCOTT
SHANE</span></a></span></h6>
<div>
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" target="_blank">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." target="_blank">drones</a>, so that a new president would inherit
clear standards and procedures, according to two
administration officials. <br>
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" target="_blank">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." target="_blank">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. <br>
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. <br>
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" target="_blank">John
O. Brennan</a>, have argued for restraint, officials
involved in the discussions say. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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" target="_blank">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. <br>
“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. <br>
Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged
that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in
progress. <br>
“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" target="_blank">appearance
on “The Daily Show”</a> on Oct. 18. <br>
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" target="_blank">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.” <br>
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. <br>
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/" target="_blank">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. <br>
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/" target="_blank">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.” <br>
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." target="_blank">Afghanistan</a>. <br>
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. <br>
“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" target="_blank">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.” <br>
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" target="_blank">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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">recent
talk at the Brookings Institution</a>, in part because of
the backlash against the strikes. <br>
<a title="Shuja Nawaz’s Atlantic
Council Web page." href="http://www.acus.org/users/shuja-nawaz" target="_blank">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. <br>
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. <br>
<div>
</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><br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div></div></div> </div></div>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><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>
</div>