7 March 2013
TERRORISM: The use of drone aircraft to target American citizens abroad should be overviewed by the Federal Court system before force is employed.
By Isabel De La Garza, Senior Writer
At the beginning of February, a Justice Department memo that legally justifies the targeting and killing of American citizens living abroad that pose a “present and imminent threat to national security” was leaked. The use of drone aircraft, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), has become increasingly popular among various nations because they are operated using cameras and remote controls. However, the drone program has been kept extremely confidential. Not much is known about it, even to the senators and representatives who are supposed to vote on its use.
In the 300 known drone strikes, more than 3,000 people have been killed, including three confirmed American-born citizens. Two of the three citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, had been targeted for their roles in Al-Qaida, but the last, the 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki, had no such role. According to Attorney General Eric Holder the government “only take[s] these kinds of actions when there’s an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible and when [it is] confident that [it is] doing so in a way that’s consistent with federal and international law.” Many Americans feel that this is not enough justification and that, as citizens, the targeted individuals must be given due process rather than sought out and killed by drones. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed lawsuits against the government challenging the constitutionality of the drone program. Other critics of the program’s memo also believe the government is stepping on civil rights, even if it does believe the U.S. is safer without Khan and al-Awlaki.
The Obama administration is working to defend itself against such attacks, but the memo still asserts that it has the right to target Americans abroad without charging them for a crime or allowing them due process. Some politicians, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, support considering legislation to establish a court to “review the conduct” of drone use. John Brennan, confirmed nominee for the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, also felt that a court review of a targeting decision is “certainly worthy of a discussion.”
As the word “imminent” in the memo is extremely elastic and could apply to Al-Qaida leaders even in the absence of impending attacks under the assumption they may be planning one, this extra protection would be of some help. Unlike normal courts, it would be impossible to interview and look for traditional evidence to convict a targeted citizen; therefore, having a public trial with lawyers would be impossible. In this case, either judicial approval of drone activities or wiretaps and/or other information used as evidence would have to be employed to justify the placement of a citizen or citizens on the “target list.” Although these systems are not ideal alternatives in regards to civil rights (especially since the latter also violates civil rights), they would at least allow for another branch of government to oversee the process, adding an extra layer of protection in the event that drone use is determined legal by judicial review.