Drones, murder and accountability

Little noticed, the Obama administration has greatly increased the use of drones to target al Qaeda suspects in Pakistan, so this is of more than intellectual interest.

Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday that he would deliver a report on June 3 to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva declaring that the “life and death power” of drones should be entrusted to regular armed forces, not intelligence agencies. He contrasted how the military and the C.I.A. responded to allegations that strikes had killed civilians by mistake.

“With the Defense Department you’ve got maybe not perfect but quite abundant accountability as demonstrated by what happens when a bombing goes wrong in Afghanistan,” he said in an interview. “The whole process that follows is very open. Whereas if the C.I.A. is doing it, by definition they are not going to answer questions, not provide any information, and not do any follow-up that we know about.”

Mr. Alston’s views are not legally binding, and his report will not assert that the operation of combat drones by nonmilitary personnel is a war crime, he said. But the mounting international concern over drones comes as the Obama administration legal team has been quietly struggling over how to justify such counterterrorism efforts while obeying the laws of war.

In recent months, top lawyers for the State Department and the Defense Department have tried to square the idea that the C.I.A.’s drone program is lawful with the United States’ efforts to prosecute Guantánamo Bay detainees accused of killing American soldiers in combat, according to interviews and a review of military documents.

Under the laws of war, soldiers in traditional armies cannot be prosecuted and punished for killing enemy forces in battle. The United States has argued that because Qaeda fighters do not obey the requirements laid out in the Geneva Conventions — like wearing uniforms — they are not “privileged combatants” entitled to such battlefield immunity. But C.I.A. drone operators also wear no uniforms.

Yoo too

I meant to take note of this this morning, but got caught up in...work. I know I'm probably considered a reflexive Obamabot, but the alleged decision to target an American citizen for death because he's gone from a propagandist for al Qaeda to a member of its "operations" group smacks of the worst abuses of his predecessor's administration. Spencer Ackerman writes,

The administration may very well be making the correct evaluation of the threat al-Awlaki poses. But if citizenship means anything, it means that a citizen can’t be killed because the government uses secret evidence to say he or she is an intolerable threat. Al-Awlaki is certainly exploiting his American citizenship. But CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told the Post’s Greg Miller, “This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law.” We at least have the right to know the legal basis the Obama administration reached to order the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen, and so I’ll be spending my morning filling out FOIAs

And, just to say it, this does seem to shine some light on the administration's decision not to indict the authors of the "torture memos" the Bush administration used to justify their disregard for the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

Signalling

According to Joshua Geltzer, author of US Counter-terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-View, acting like a pissed off "daddy," might not be the strongest course of action for the president.

BOB GARFIELD: Would you recommend to a president of the United States, in the event of successful attacks, maybe in which hundreds or thousands of lives are lost, that he similarly understate the response that we don't go into full mobilization mode, we don't give succor to our terrorist enemies by overreacting, even when the damage is catastrophic?

JOSHUA GELTZER: I think that to the extent that we can react effectively but quietly, that combination is ideal, or at least the best of various tough alternatives. So, to take an example, I think this administration which has actually ramped up the Predator strikes along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border has spoken about them less than the previous administration did. So even while engaging in more of them, it’s said less about them.

Now, we don't know exactly how successful these attacks have been, but the idea of doing them quietly and not exulting in particular successes may allow for the practical success without the counterproductive signaling.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of Predator Drones along the border, though I understand the appeal to the Pentagon and the White House. I do, however, agree that speaking less about them -- and less bellicosely -- even as we ramp up their use, is a change for the better.

Keystone Kops and Robburs

I am sitting in a medical provider's lobby -- or rather, the third circle of hell as epitomized by the relentless, forced application of the Today Show -- while Madame Cura undergoes a procedure that is a wonder of modern health care and seemingly medieval in technique. Meanwhile, I recommend you read Paul Campos's explanation of why al Qaeda continues to make increasingly ridiculous attempts to blow up an airliner using various modes of the would-be bomber's apparel when a couple of car bombs exploding a couple times of year in a few of our major cities would accomplish the group's terror-inducing goal. In short, airlines are the perfect medium for the terrorists, our politicians, and the media.

Shifting reactions to torture...and shoes

Eric Martin has two important posts at Obsidian Wings. In the first, he gathers the response to the bipartisan report on torture, the Bush administration's frequent lies about it, and the unsurprising shift in attitudes by the Right.

In the second, he ridicules the Right side of the -osphere again, this time for their reactions to the shoe-throwing incident in which they take ungrateful Iraqis to task for not showing enough love for the man who has left Iraq with hundreds of thousands dead, tortured, or turned to refugees.

Both are too important and insightful to reduce to pull quotes, but one thing did strike me:

Whether or not the flypaper theory was part of the calculus before the invasion, or just a convenient ex post facto rationalization, war supporters from the President and Vice President down have repeated the argument that by virtue of the invasion, and maintenance of troops in Iraq, we can attract al-Qaeda and other extremists to Iraq and "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Just today Bush reiterated this point:

Bush: There have been no attacks since I have been president, since 9/11. One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take ...

Raddatz: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

Bush: Yeah, that's right. So what?

So what? Really? I imagine some Iraqis might, you know, care that their country was turned into bait to lure combatants.

I imagine so, too; it's why the shoe thrower is now a national hero in Iraq. But what especially struck me is that as the Bush administration begins its slow fade, we're hearing more and more from them and their dead-enders a common theme: that al Qaeda hasn't attacked us on our soil since 9/11 (forgetting the guy who tried to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow-torch, but for sake of argument, let's agree that what they say is true).

So, okay, al Qaeda hasn't attacked us on our soil since 9/11. In the words of Bush, "So what?" More precisely, why would they? Bin Liden didn't, as Bush and the Right claim, "Hate us for our freedoms." As I've long understood it, he hated America primarily for a few very specific reasons, most especially because American troops were stationed in the land of Mecca and Medina, a grave humiliation in B.L.'s eyes. Those troops are gone, removed in response to the attack of 9/11. In other words, Bin Laden's grievances at the time were answered.

Fresh reasons to hate us have surely replaced that one, and new ones are always right around the corner, no doubt. For instance, American troops are now stationed in Iraq, a place with its own sites holy to Sunni Muslims. For now, though, it seems al Qaeda is content to attack the fly paper, such as it is.

Pulling their beards

The election's had at least one more positive outcome. It seems to have pissed off al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda votes

It comes as no surprise, but it appears that al Qaeda is reveling in our economic misfortunes and hoping for the "son of Bush," John McCain to win on November 4.

Al-Qaeda is watching the U.S. stock market's downward slide with something akin to jubilation, with its leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.

And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

Remember folks, this ain't over 'til it's over.