 Tom Grasson |
The American Heritage Dictionary defines drone as a pilotless aircraft operated by remote control. However, as you read on, this same word is defined as an idle person who lives off others; a loafer.
Now, I’m not saying that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a drone when it comes to lethal drone attacks against terrorists. However, I am questioning their most recent crusade to find out when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States can ensure compliance with international laws relating to the minimization of the loss of innocent lives.
Yes, it’s true, that under the current administration there has been a significant increase in the use of drone strikes, especially in Pakistan. In response to the 9/11 attacks, drones have also been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen to battle al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally held that when it comes to matters dealing with foreign affairs, foreign relations, and wars, the commander-in-chief has exclusive domain, the ACLU is asking who or what gives the current administration and the CIA the legal authority to do so.
It is difficult to understand what the ACLU is trying to accomplish by their recent filing of a Freedom of Information Act with the Department of Defense and the CIA. In a recent press release, Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project said, “We’re hopeful that the request we’ve filed will encourage the Obama administration to disclose information about the basis, scope, and implementation of the program.”
There just doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to this most recent action by the ACLU. Fighting a war on terrorism calls for a united front, both in the United States and around the world. We can’t have private citizens objecting and trying to thwart national security. The actions by the ACLU are potentially detrimental to American lives, as well as the lives of our allies.
In a recent speech, State Department Legal Advisor, Harold Koh responded to the ACLU by saying, “some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise.”
Now you be the judge. Is the ACLU a loafer with the right to pressure the government into disclosing information concerning drone attacks, or is the current administration within its rights to conduct drone strikes without any open debates on the use of drone strikes and how targets are selected?
I look forward to hearing your groans (both pro and con) on drones. All responses will be posted on the Aerospace Manufacturing and Design website.
|
