Our Illegal Drone Program

Here’s Daniel Klaidman’s idea of a rule book that represents restraint.

And then there is “the playbook”—an ambitious attempt to create explicit rules and procedures for when lethal force is justified. The initiative began more than a year ago. It is highly detailed and lays out, for example, criteria for the so-called disposition-matrix, which prescribes whether terrorist suspects should be killed, captured, or dealt with in some other way. Embedded in the document are the legal authorizations for pursuing the enemy away from conventional battlefields in places like Yemen, Somalia, and now Mali—a crucial check on a war without defined boundaries. The playbook also toughens the standard for when a targeted killing is justified. Simply being a threat to “United States interests,” for example, no longer meets the threshold. That standard is too elastic, according to officials who have been involved in writing the new rules. And the document makes finely grained distinctions about where one must be in the chain of command of a terrorist organization to be targetable. A driver or cook, who can be easily replaced, may not represent the kind of unique threat that would warrant lethal action. A bomb maker, on the other hand, would.

Mind you, as described, the Rule Book does represent an improvement. I’ve noted that the disposition matrix may or may not be a good thing; while legal process is better than drone killing, we may still have the trigger for that set too low.

But the real news in this passage seems to be both what was permitted and what still is.

Klaidman reveals, for example, that the standard for killing has been nothing more than threatening US interests, which may or may not even equate to a physical threat. We’re killing people because they represent a threat to our interests? Isn’t that cheating?

He strongly suggests we’ve been targeting all manner of alleged terrorists, including cooks and drivers. And we’ve changed that practice not because of the dubious legality of targeting non-combatants, but because cooks are easily replaced.

But even still the drone program seems to be illegal. Consider this passage.

Embedded in the document are the legal authorizations for pursuing the enemy away from conventional battlefields in places like Yemen, Somalia, and now Mali—a crucial check on a war without defined boundaries.

As Jack Goldsmith has recently noted, AQIM is not covered in the AUMF.

This framework is becoming obsolete because some newly threatening Islamist terrorist groups do not plausibly fall within the AUMF.  Many of these groups—such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (in Northern Africa) or the al-Nusra Front (a rebel group in Syria associated with al Qaeda in Iraq)—have no direct links to al Qaeda and unclear ones to al Qaeda affiliates.  Regardless of where the precise outer boundaries of the AUMF lie, there is a growing gap between the threats posed by Islamist terrorist groups and the president’s legal authority to meet the threats under the AUMF.

So if we’re targeting people in Mali as part of a war, whose authorization are we using for that war?

And as Klaidman notes and was reported earlier by the WaPo, these rules will not even go into place universally. We’ve built in an exception for Pakistan (which, unless the Senate does something totally unexpected, means for John Brennan at CIA). Which means presumably these things — targeting cooks for being a threat to our interests — will continue in Pakistan at least until we withdraw from Afghanistan.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

7 Responses to Our Illegal Drone Program

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Boehner is probably having his best day as Speaker ever. He managed to deliver on a promise w/o flubbing vote count, and ... BibiPalooza!!!
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @DuaneG Thank you! It's one of those days...
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @michaelbkiefer Why need for a modified Allen charge??
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel Yes, in any case, if the judge goes on a rampage, the defendant can't get more than stacked and maxed. #Journalmalism
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Read how Petraeus crimes'd normally be "Free Handjob & iPad Day at Walt Disney World" for prosecutors but weren't. https://t.co/QKYDlWKjor
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Popehat: Updated my Petraeus post with the plea agreement, which makes his deal even sweeter. https://t.co/3UHhCaMIHy
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chriswnews @william_pitts @michaelbkiefer I look forward to more ballpark cuisine reportage! Also, I NEED one of those hot dogs.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel "That means even if federal judge who sentences him goes on a rampage, he can't get > a year in federal prison" https://t.co/QKYDlWsIwT
7mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz We have a complex jury question! RT @william_pitts #JodiArias wearing purple. Or gold. DAMN YOU #TheDress !
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel No no. LA has the high speed car chases, AZ get the long necked furry critters. Just how it is.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel .@bmaz Who said they were gonna be loosed then lassoed in AZ again? Better to stage the scene where there's ice or snow.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel Listen up, we only loose the llamas here for OJ pursuits. No alpacas.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728