By Rami G. Khouri: WASHINGTON, D.C. -- If you want to better understand the best and worst aspects of the American system of government and the morality that underpins it, you should follow one of the most fascinating developments taking place in the U.S. capital these days: the debate that has opened on the secretive world of the government’s use of unmanned drones to kill suspects who are accused of being senior members of Al-Qaeda. Among those killed are American citizens such as Anwar el-Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen in 2011.

The issue has been spurred by the increased pace of drone use in recent years to kill targets in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Senate hearing on the nomination of John Brennan to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has been directly involved in overseeing many of the drone assassinations in recent years, and his nomination has spurred new requests from American members of congress for more information on the administration’s legal justifications for this use of drones.

The Obama administration has just directed the Justice Department to release to two congressional intelligence committees classified documents that discuss the legal justifications for using drones and other means to assassinate suspected terrorist leaders. That justification claims that the U.S. government can kill any person around the world, including American citizens, if “an informed high-level official” decided that the target was an Al-Qaeda senior official who “posed an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” and if his capture was not feasible.

Some Americans are asking for greater civilian oversight of the decisions to kill suspects, perhaps by creating a special court similar to the one that has long operated to allow the executive branch of government to tap into the telephone conversations of suspected criminals. The reasoning here is that if a panel of impartial and sensible judges reviews the available evidence and approves the use of telephone wire-tapping or killing Americans or other nationals, this overcomes the concern that the civil rights of the suspects are being denied.

Some members of congress have requested more detailed legal arguments from the White House in order to fully debate the matter and make sure that “the president’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards,” in the words of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. This reflects the best aspects of the American way of government, where different branches of government check and balance each other to minimize abuse of power, and ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards of citizen rights, including the most fundamental human right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s life.

The ugly side of the same American morality and government policy, however, finds it perfectly legitimate to kill anyone suspected of being an imminent threat to the United States, without subjecting the charges against the targeted person to the full protection of the law and the individual’s constitutional safeguards -- which make the United States such an attractive country for so many people around the world.

The critics of the government justification of the drone killings focus on both the morality/legality of these actions and their efficacy. Critics say the administration’s definition of what is an “imminent threat” is far too broad and vague, can be defined in any manner the executive branch wants, and is not subject to any external check on this authority to kill at will. These criticisms mirror similar objections that were expressed to the George W. Bush administration’s use of water-boarding and other torture techniques, which also were justified on the grounds that they were used only to prevent an “imminent” attack against American targets. 

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have questioned the administration’s justifications on the grounds of being “chilling” and violating fundamental human rights. Other critics argue on the basis of efficacy and say the drone killings do not necessarily serve the purpose of reducing threats against the United States, for in many cases where drone strikes kill innocent civilians they increase anti-American antagonism and perhaps also spur recruits to anti-American groups like Al-Qaeda.

There is great merit to the political debate within the United States about how the legislative and judicial branches of government can play a greater oversight role in the use of drones to assassinate Americans and others who are deemed a threat to the country. This reflects the finest aspects of the American system of government that protects American citizens against excessive use or abuse of power by the government and its military and police agencies. The dark side of this same morality, however, is that Americans still believe that can use their armed forces to attack any country in the world at will, and kill anyone they suspect of being a threat to them, with executive branch officials and military officers acting as judge, jury and executioner at the same time.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon. You can follow him @ramikhouri.

Copyright © 2013 Rami G. Khouri -- distributed by Agence Global

[PHOTO CREDIT: UK Ministry of Defence (CC)]

Views: 466

Tags: law, peace, rights, technology, war


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Comment by Ephraim Akenzua on February 13, 2013 at 7:59pm

Me veto, conformity with certain ethics is subservient to ones survival. It is when one is alife ethics are then given cosideration and moralized on. We have no illusion to the very fact that the use of drone strike as a preemptive neutralization measure can not be over emphasized in the US fight against terrorism. In my country there is a common saying that "when a hunter wants to catch a monkey he too must first act like one". And in respect of the collateral damages we must remember that we cant make omlettes without braking of egss.incidentally, we must call to mind too that the morality of an action or intended action is predicated on ones perception. Thus "morality in the eyes of the beholder"

Carnegie Council

The Power of Tribalism, with Amy Chua & Walter Russell Mead

"In our foreign policy, for at least half a century, we have been spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics," says Amy Chua, author of "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations." What does this mean in 2019? How can Americans move past tribalism? Don't miss this conversation with Chua and Bard College's Walter Russell Mead, moderated by Bard's Roger Berkowitz.

Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, & Political Responsibility, with Stephen Gardiner

University of Washington's Professor Stephen Gardiner discusses the ethics of climate change from intergenerational, political, and personal perspectives. Should individuals feel bad for using plastic straws or eating meat? What should the UN and its member states do? And how can older generations make up for "a massive failure in leadership" that has led, in part, to the current crisis?

C2G Update: Nature-based Solutions, the UN, & the IPCC Reports, with Janos Pasztor

Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G), gives an update on his team's work after a busy week in New York. In the wake of troubling IPCC reports on climate change's effect on the oceans and land use, what more can the UN do? What are the challenges of nature-based solutions? And how should we handle climate change fatigue, individually and on a societal level?





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.