I write this as a fan of President Obama, who maintains faith that he is steering the country in the right direction the right way - not by dictating the path forward but by helping guide the discussion of the American people, so we ask for government to serve us responsibly and make it make the changes we want.
That said I agree with John Podesta and everyone else calling for more clarity on the Drone program.
John Podesta: Obama should lift secrecy on drones - The Washington Post
I actually disagree with the widely-shared interpretation that Rand Paul's filibuster did anything except show that Mr. Paul is willing to put his money where his mouth is, rather than scheming out of sight, threatening to do it. (And I respect him for that). All the White House did was clarify one clause in their stance - from "extremely special circumstances" to "Americans engaged in combat." Don't get me wrong: I'm glad we got clarification on that. But it's not like the Obama administration was taking out Americans who disagreed with his political beliefs (or burning him in effigy or threatening to kill him) until Mr. Paul made his stand.
Here's an explanation of what happened to the three Americans killed by drones, in case you're not sure:
Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, in America’s Cross Hairs - NYTimes.com
Regardless I think we've all waited long enough to hear Obama's vision for the use of drones. There should be enough data to make clear how effective and how damaging the program is, comparing the safety of American troops and foreign citizens to the perception that America is terrorizing people in other countries. If there is a good reason why Obama has not made it clear to us yet, he should at least speak to that.
And even then I think he needs to get on with it. I keep sending emails to the White House. You can too: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
And while you're at it, imagine how you would like drones to be used - and international justice to be served. The "War on Terror," which could reasonably be re-defined as suppressing a rebellion against international trade and culture, could go on forever. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to use police tactics, giving terror suspects (violent rebellion suspects) the same rights we afford criminal suspects, arresting them for trial.
In this evolution drones would have to be re-designed to disable or trap suspects for a couple of hours, until police could arrive to take them into questioning - say with a temporary nerve gas, tranquilizer darts or a massive electrified net. And they'd only be used in situations where local authorities couldn't or wouldn't arrest the suspects themselves. Drones could still retain some lethal capabilities to support authorities if they meet violent resistance, much the way police carry weapons in case they are attacked.
The key to this, I think, is convincing locals that the suspects are going to be treated fairly once they are captured, so ground support personnel don't have to fight too much against otherwise cooperative neighbors. And that would require developing an international court system that people around the world could agree on. The Hague is a great first step.
The next step is holding Americans and Europeans -including government officials- subject to the same rules we are holding people of the developing world accountable for. Our courts would have to be integrated, with a lot of debate about which laws are local and which are international and how much power local governments have to be different. Beliefs will have to be supported or challenged by research. Does the American prison system work? Or the system in Islamic countries, cutting people's hands and fingers off? Or caning in Singapore?
I think this work has already begun, with businesses, media and government collecting and sharing the views of all the people of the earth so they can serve and thrive. The more people hear about one another's ideas the more they will consider changing towards a consensus.
Fundamentalists and traditionalists are freaking out, protesting and blowing themselves up over the proposition of alternatives to their views. But this is proving itself to be unpopular and ultimately the flexible will continue to adapt, embrace and reform their cultures to the best ideas being offered from around the world.
Those are big, long processes that will take years to refine. In the meantime, people in the communities where drones are being used need access to information, so they can follow what happens to captured suspects, learn about the evidence, and develop faith that the system is fair. Smart phones are rapidly becoming ubiquitous in developed countries, but in areas where drones are going to be useful the military might need to spread this technology to offset the impact of their presence.
The justice system is also going to have to move faster on cases than it has. Why is it, for example, it has taken years to try Bradley Manning, the soldier who gave classified information to WikiLeaks?
People in Afghanistan or Pakistan won't wait for years to find out what happened to people who are whisked away for trial in a foreign country. They'll assume the worst.
There's also a cost to someone's life when you spend years incarcerating them pending trial or dragging them in and out of courts. If we really believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is unacceptable to interfere with their lives like this.
People in other countries won't trust us unless we keep proving to them that our system works. We should offer it to them in the same way we offer it to our own citizens, including the opportunity to voice criticism of the system and help shape it. So tell Obama what YOU want him to do about drones!
That said I agree with John Podesta and everyone else calling for more clarity on the Drone program.
John Podesta: Obama should lift secrecy on drones - The Washington Post
I actually disagree with the widely-shared interpretation that Rand Paul's filibuster did anything except show that Mr. Paul is willing to put his money where his mouth is, rather than scheming out of sight, threatening to do it. (And I respect him for that). All the White House did was clarify one clause in their stance - from "extremely special circumstances" to "Americans engaged in combat." Don't get me wrong: I'm glad we got clarification on that. But it's not like the Obama administration was taking out Americans who disagreed with his political beliefs (or burning him in effigy or threatening to kill him) until Mr. Paul made his stand.
Here's an explanation of what happened to the three Americans killed by drones, in case you're not sure:
Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, in America’s Cross Hairs - NYTimes.com
Regardless I think we've all waited long enough to hear Obama's vision for the use of drones. There should be enough data to make clear how effective and how damaging the program is, comparing the safety of American troops and foreign citizens to the perception that America is terrorizing people in other countries. If there is a good reason why Obama has not made it clear to us yet, he should at least speak to that.
And even then I think he needs to get on with it. I keep sending emails to the White House. You can too: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
And while you're at it, imagine how you would like drones to be used - and international justice to be served. The "War on Terror," which could reasonably be re-defined as suppressing a rebellion against international trade and culture, could go on forever. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to use police tactics, giving terror suspects (violent rebellion suspects) the same rights we afford criminal suspects, arresting them for trial.
In this evolution drones would have to be re-designed to disable or trap suspects for a couple of hours, until police could arrive to take them into questioning - say with a temporary nerve gas, tranquilizer darts or a massive electrified net. And they'd only be used in situations where local authorities couldn't or wouldn't arrest the suspects themselves. Drones could still retain some lethal capabilities to support authorities if they meet violent resistance, much the way police carry weapons in case they are attacked.
The key to this, I think, is convincing locals that the suspects are going to be treated fairly once they are captured, so ground support personnel don't have to fight too much against otherwise cooperative neighbors. And that would require developing an international court system that people around the world could agree on. The Hague is a great first step.
The next step is holding Americans and Europeans -including government officials- subject to the same rules we are holding people of the developing world accountable for. Our courts would have to be integrated, with a lot of debate about which laws are local and which are international and how much power local governments have to be different. Beliefs will have to be supported or challenged by research. Does the American prison system work? Or the system in Islamic countries, cutting people's hands and fingers off? Or caning in Singapore?
I think this work has already begun, with businesses, media and government collecting and sharing the views of all the people of the earth so they can serve and thrive. The more people hear about one another's ideas the more they will consider changing towards a consensus.
Fundamentalists and traditionalists are freaking out, protesting and blowing themselves up over the proposition of alternatives to their views. But this is proving itself to be unpopular and ultimately the flexible will continue to adapt, embrace and reform their cultures to the best ideas being offered from around the world.
Those are big, long processes that will take years to refine. In the meantime, people in the communities where drones are being used need access to information, so they can follow what happens to captured suspects, learn about the evidence, and develop faith that the system is fair. Smart phones are rapidly becoming ubiquitous in developed countries, but in areas where drones are going to be useful the military might need to spread this technology to offset the impact of their presence.
The justice system is also going to have to move faster on cases than it has. Why is it, for example, it has taken years to try Bradley Manning, the soldier who gave classified information to WikiLeaks?
People in Afghanistan or Pakistan won't wait for years to find out what happened to people who are whisked away for trial in a foreign country. They'll assume the worst.
There's also a cost to someone's life when you spend years incarcerating them pending trial or dragging them in and out of courts. If we really believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is unacceptable to interfere with their lives like this.
People in other countries won't trust us unless we keep proving to them that our system works. We should offer it to them in the same way we offer it to our own citizens, including the opportunity to voice criticism of the system and help shape it. So tell Obama what YOU want him to do about drones!
Of course, we can't just jump to a new policy like the one I laid out overnight. We should take steps towards it. And the first step should be to stop using Hellfire missiles which kill dozens of people every time they strike a target. Instead we could use laser-guided bullets:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/laser-guided-bullets-2012-6