Thursday, February 7, 2013

UNDERSTANDING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DRONE WAR (and why it shouldn't surprise anyone)

On the surface this is not a good media week for our national security institutions ... 

An independent report, Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition, was released this week. In a few words it explains where and how the United States was able to abduct and torture terror suspects around the world. It is regarded as "the most comprehensive account of human rights abuses" by the CIA. 



Then we have Michael Isikoff's story this week, which outlines how President Obama is increasingly relying upon drones to attack suspected terrorists, and even U.S. citizens abroad who pose a threat to the United States. It doesn't matter if the individuals were ever tried in a court of law, or if they are United States citizens. We also learn that President Obama has a "more elastic" concept of imminent threat. 



Whether you agree with torture or the drone attacks as a matter of policy, it's important that we have an understanding of how we have arrived at this point in our national security road

__________________________

* The Post-9/11 Environment: Fear dominates America's national scene.

The Patriot Act: This act of Congress immediately after 9/11 reduced restrictions on law enforcement for gathering information, and expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic incidents (however loosely defined). Many FISA-like provisions were made available as well. In 2011 President Obama signed a four year extension for roving wiretaps, business record searches, and for the surveillance of "lone wolves" (individuals suspected of terrorist activities, but not connected to any terrorist groups). 

* Operation Enduring Freedom (originally Operation Enduring Justice): An on-going and seemingly open-ended war linked to the larger and more amorphous war on terror. This has given rise to what has been called the national security state and America's unitary executive.

* The Unitary Presidency: After 9/11 White House lawyer John Yoo wrote a memo to President Bush that stated the president’s powers were not confined to the battlefield or wars because “Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11, 2001 incidents … These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.”

* NSA Eavesdropping: President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans without obtaining a warrant, and did so numerous times. The president and his advisers claimed the president has the authority during war time and that judicial oversight is not necessary and/or is too cumbersome to deal with real time threats.

* Extraordinary Rendition: The Bush administration asserted that it had the authority to kidnap and fly (or transport) suspected enemies to interrogation stations around the world. This practice is called extraordinary rendition, and was initiated during the Clinton administration. 



* Torture Redefined: An August 2002 memo, written largely by John Yoo but signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, argued that torture required the intent to inflict suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

* Tools of War and State Secrets: The Bush administration claimed they could not release prisoners exposed to certain interrogation "programs" (i.e. torture techniques).  The administration claimed that torture programs – which they also denied existed – are state secrets. 



Releasing prisoners who have been part of the "program" could undermine national security because they could then speak with the press, and release details of our interrogation methods. Al Qaeda, it’s assumed, would then begin to practice these methods and build up some kind of - for lack of a better term - torture stamina.

State Secrets and Corruption: According to the State Secrets Doctrine Congress and the American taxpayer can’t ask to take a look at national security related items - like the books of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s troubled Shi'ite government - because releasing embarrassing information could undermine U.S. security, or U.S.-Iraq relations.

* State Secrets and Due Process: The Supreme Court refused to hear Masri v. United States. Here the plaintiff, a German national, argued that he was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and then transported to overseas prisons where he was tortured. The assumption here is that the State Secrets Doctrine can be employed (by the Supreme Court) to dismiss cases without evidence ever being produced.

* Intent is Good Enough: Hamid Hayat of Lodi, Ca. was arrested and convicted although the government had no direct evidence. What the U.S. government argued was that Hamid Hayat had a “jihadi heart and a jihadi mind.” In spite of withdrawing their original affidavit because of what it revealed about Hayat and the process, the prosecutor’s argued Hayat’s intent was clear. For those who have seen Tom Cruise’s “Minority Report” you know where this leads. 

____________________________

To make a long story short, as I pointed out many times before, the war on terror has aided in turning America into a national security fortress, and the American president into a fledgling American Caesar. If Americans don't like what's happening with President Obama and the drone war they need to learn more, and get Congress to turn back the clock on the developments listed above. 

President Obama, like President Bush, is simply doing what Congress authorized him to do.

- Mark 

No comments: