The White House Decides Maybe They’re Not “Targeted Killings” After All
In the 15 paragraphs that make up the core of John Brennan’s so-called transparency on drone killings, he used the word “target” in one or another form 24 times.
… the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists … the debate over strikes targeted at individual members of al-Qaida has centered on their legality, their ethics, the wisdom of using them, and the standards by which they are approved. … First, these targeted strikes are legal. … Second, targeted strikes are ethical. Without question, the ability to target a specific individual, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, raises profound questions. …
Targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity, the requirement that the target have definite military value. In this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al-Qaida or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. We have the authority to target them with lethal force just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts, such as Germans and Japanese commanders during World War II.
Targeted strikes conform to the principles of distinction, the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted. With the unprecedented ability of remotely piloted aircraft to precisely target a military objective while minimizing collateral damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al-Qaida terrorist and innocent civilians.
Targeted strikes conform to the principle of proportionality, … By targeting an individual terrorist or small numbers of terrorists with ordnance that can be adapted to avoid harming others in the immediate vicinity, … targeted strikes conform to the principle of humanity which requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. For all these reasons, I suggest to you that these targeted strikes against al-Qaida terrorists are indeed ethical and just. … Targeted strikes are wise. Remotely piloted aircraft … strike their targets with astonishing precision, … Yet they are also a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury and death far beyond their intended target. … a pilot operating this aircraft remotely … might actually have a clearer picture of the target and its surroundings, … There’s another reason that targeted strikes can be a wise choice, the strategic consequences that inevitably come with the use of force. As we’ve seen, deploying large armies abroad won’t always be our best offense. … In comparison, there is the precision of targeted strikes.
In an 11-paragraph statement given to McClatchy in response to its reports that we’ve been “targeting” people who are not our enemies last Friday (but not, as far as I can tell, released more broadly), National Security Council spokesperson (and Tommy Vietor replacement) Caitlin Hayden uses a form of “target” just three times, in these bullets:
Scrupulous adherence to the rule of law. These speeches have all emphasized the Administration’s commitment to conducting these actions in accordance with all applicable law, including the laws of war. In particular, we have repeatedly emphasized the extraordinary care we take to ensure that these operations conform to the law of war principles of (1) necessity – the requirement that the target have definite military value; (2) distinction – the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted; (3) proportionality – the notion that the anticipated collateral damage of an action cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage; and (4) humanity – a principle that requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.
A recognition that we are establishing standards other nations may follow, such that we have established robust commitments to, among other things, determining whether the individual poses a significant threat to U.S. interests; determining that capture is not feasible; having a high degree of confidence, both in the identity of the target and that innocent civilians will not be harmed.
I guess giving up on the fiction that these are “targeted” strikes is what Hayden uses to justify repeating the claim that the Obama Administration has offered “unprecedented level of transparency” on its counterterrorism operations.
Mind you, her statement is still full of laughable fiction, such as when she claims providing OLC memos authorizing the killing of an American to the intelligence committees at least 31 months after they were written and 17 months after they were relied on constitutes “consult[ing] with Congress on national security matters.”
Still, I’m glad the Administration has finally tacitly admitted that their drone strikes are not targeted killings.
Let’s hope Scott Shane adjusts his language accordingly.
Update: I originally missed one additional use of “target” in Hayden’s statement. I’ve corrected the post accordingly.
Reacting to the euphemistic spin surrounding the term “target”, I ran to my dictionary to find the word denotes a small shield carried by foot-soldiers. Such were painted with concentric circles for the purpose of practice in shooting accuracy. That is, a target is a device intended for practice, not an intrinsic goal of aggression. The word can, of course be used euphemistically to refer to any goal of any effort, such as raising a specific amount of money for the United Way, or losing a certain amount of weight this year. However these applications are euphemisms, metaphorical extensions of the literal meaning, what the Irish might refer to as “blarney”.
What if did not find(a la Joe Wilson)however, was ANY usage of the word “target” as a verb. That is, there is no activity called “target”, “targeting”, nor “targeted”. Such usage is more blarney. The expression “targeted killing” is thus an oxymoron, used, I suggest, to distract from the awful militaristic annihilation being conducted for dubious reasons, supposedly on our behalf.
Thus Hayden’s “bullet” would become: “(2) Distinction-the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally specified (as such) and that civilians are protected from being intentionally shot at.
“unprecedented” speaks to magnitude, not direction.
Caught in big lies again. Weaseling again. The hallmark of the Bush administration, I thought. Now the hallmark of the Obama administration too.
This seems rather quaint, given your Gitmo post that follows this one.
Scrupulous adherence to the rule of law requires acceptance of habeas corpus — something denied the Gitmo detainees in any meaningful way.
Necessity — hmmm . . . if the detainees have been cleared for releases, that implies that it is not necessary to hold them.
Humanity — indefinite detention and forced feedings seem to fit the definition of unnecessary suffering to me.
@Peterr:
“In this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al-Qaida or its associated forces are legitimate military targets.”
Someone should tell Brennan, don’t talk unless it improves the silence. The words “legitimate military target” imply that it was the military that did the targeting. AUMF was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The CIA is not part of the military, its employees have no combatant’s privilege.
Come on, if making the CIA a uniformed service (like the Coast Guard or NOAA) has too many moving parts, how hard would it have been to give CIA pilots Air Force Reserve commissions? I’m gobsmacked that no CIA, Pentagon or White House lawyer thought that it might be a good idea to comply with the Law of Land Warfare instead of, rather unfairly, leaving CIA officers on the hook for literally thousands of counts of “Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country” (which doesn’t require victim to be a US citizen).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Granted, thanks to the magic of jury nullification, I don’t think you could find 12 American jurors who’d vote to convict in any prosecution (I doubt I would if I was on the jury) but its not cool to leave federal employees exposed to that kind of criminal liability.
Interesting how the principle of proportionality didn’t apply to the military action after 9/11. Indeed the AUMF and invasion of Afghanistan was a unanimous decision in Congress, and the public was fully on-board as well. Though, as Ron Paul has argued, since non-state actors were the perpetrators of the attack, a proper response would have been one which is in proportion to the attack itself, that being covert and small-scale. CIA and JSOC could and should have operated a strike, stealthily so, instead of ripping into two countries, dividing it down ethnic lines, and creating more instability than prior to our occupation.
—- But then again, perhaps that was the goal all along. After all, military contractors are making billions off this war. Plus the surveillance state is given cover under the auspices of war; which is to say, intelligence contractors like Statfor are much needed.
The surveillance state is like the cyborg: more and more are being assimilated into a spy culture through the extension of ideals like security and safety. We see the worst in others, presuming them to be guilty until proven otherwise.