Last week, Senators threatened
to put a "hold" on the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director over
his refusal to answer questions about the use of drones to kill Americans
on US soil. That the president's nominee to head the agency that has used
drones to kill perhaps thousands overseas could not deny their possible use
at home should be shocking. How did we get to this point?
The Obama administration has rapidly expanded the use of drones overseas,
as they appear a way to expand US military action without the political risk
of American boots on the ground. In fact they are one of the main reasons
a recent Gallup survey of
Pakistan, where most US drone strikes take place, found that 92% disapprove
of U.S. leadership. This is the lowest approval rate Pakistan citizens have
ever given to the United States. And it is directly related to US drone strikes.
The risk of blowback increases all the time. However the false propaganda
about the success of our drone program overseas leads officials to believe
that drones should also be used over US soil as well.
In attempt to ease criticism of the use of drones against Americans, some
in Congress propose more oversight, as if that should make us feel any better.
In last week's hearings, CIA nominee Brennan suggested that he was open to
a Congressional proposal to set up a secret court to oversee the president's
program to kill Americans by drone. Should we cheer that a court selected
by government officials will meet in secret to oversee the president's secret
decisions on killing Americans without charge or trial? Has the Constitution
been so eroded that we accept such a horrific and terrifying prospect?
While touting the success of its overseas drone program, the US administration refuses to
even admit publicly that the CIA has an overseas drone program. In response
to a recent ACLU Freedom of Information request regarding the existence of
the CIA's drone program, the Department of Justice responded, "the very fact
of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified." How
is that for government transparency?
Recently, Federal Aviation Administration official, Jim Williams, stated that
no armed drones would presently be permitted in US airspace. But what good
are the promises of government officials when the Constitution, and especially
the Fourth Amendment, has been gutted? More than1,400 applications to
use drones in US airspace have been approved, including for police, universities,
and at least seven federal agencies. Do we want to live in a society where
the government is constantly watching us from above? The East Germans and
Soviets could only dream of such technology in the days of their dictatorship.
We might ask ourselves how long before "extraordinary" circumstances will
lead to a decision to arm those drones over US territory.
The US government justified its attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq and against
Gaddafi in Libya, and elsewhere, with claims that these despots were killing
their own citizens without trial or due process. It is true that extra-juridical
killing is the opposite of justice in a free society.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote last
week about the president's assassination program, "When [the president] kills
without due process, he disobeys the laws he has sworn to uphold, no matter
who agrees with him. When we talk about killing as if it were golf, we debase
ourselves. And when the government kills and we put our heads in the sand,
woe to us when there is no place to hide."
