Make us your home page
Instagram

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

In drone debate: Does Obama have authority to kill Americans?

A leaked Justice Department white paper has renewed the debate over presidential power and the war on terrorism. The timing of the leak, just days into President Obama's second term, was convenient for the many people who have switched sides in that debate.

Conservatives who supported George W. Bush's claims of war power are now alarmed by the prospect of four more years of Obama ordering drone strikes. Without any great self-awareness, they criticize the hypocrisy of liberals who have made the reverse commute between principled positions.

To the extent any of this debate has been serious, it has focused on whether any president should have the authority to order that people be killed without any judicial review, and whether it should make any difference if someone on the kill list is an American citizen.

The white paper says the administration can target any U.S. citizen who is "a senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" on two conditions: if he can't be captured and if "an informed, high-level official" thinks he poses an "imminent threat of violent attack." The paper rejects the normal definition of "imminent threat," reasoning that these people are always plotting to do us harm. It also seems to suggest that capture will rarely be feasible, since we have to move fast to stop these plots.

In practice, then, the White House seems to believe that a U.S. citizen who is high up in al-Qaida, or an affiliate, has signed his own death warrant. (Although the paper doesn't address the question, it implies that non-citizens wouldn't even need to be high up to be killed.)

To support its argument that it has the legal authority to kill citizens, the administration has cited the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed three days after the attacks of Sept. 11. That legislation gives the president the power "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It isn't clear that this justification goes as far as the administration maintains. More than 11 years after the attacks, an al-Qaida affiliate could be led by someone with no real complicity in them. It would be a stretch to say the 2001 law justifies taking action against such a person whether he is a citizen or not. The white paper's secondary justification - the president's "constitutional responsibility to protect the country" - doesn't fill the gap. That responsibility requires the president to act, even in the absence of congressional authorization, against someone planning a specific attack on America. The white paper has more amorphous threats in mind.

It makes sense for the president to have the authority to order the killing of people who weren't involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and aren't known to be hatching a specific attack, but only if they are, in fact, at war with the U.S. There isn't, and can't be, due process on a battlefield - and we don't check citizenship, either. But the war on terrorism has evolved since 2001, and Congress ought to update its definition of the enemy with whom America is at war.

As it does so, it could lay down rules that provide the war on terrorism with more legal and political legitimacy. If this fight has some of the features of a conventional war and some of the features of law enforcement, Congress may need to come up with new institutions to regulate it: "national security courts" to handle detained enemy combatants, for example.

Even the best rules are not, however, a substitute for morally informed judgment. And we have reason to doubt that such judgment is being exercised. The most troubling question the administration's strategy against terrorism raises is whether its reliance on drones is eroding the principle that collateral damage to innocents be minimized.

The administration assures us that it is mindful of this principle. Yet it hasn't disputed a New York Times report that it simply presumes that "all military-age males in a strike zone" are combatants. Liberals, moderates and conservatives should all raise their voices against this practice. The war on terrorism needs a sound moral as well as legal foundation. And that will require not just legislative changes but political mobilization by citizens willing to ask the right questions of America's leaders.

In drone debate: Does Obama have authority to kill Americans? 02/12/13 [Last modified: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:19pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Bloomberg News.
    

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

Loading...
  1. Senate to take up AUMF debate as Trump defends reaction to Niger attack

    World

    WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is taking up a long-awaited debate about authorizing military force against the Islamic State as President Trump comes under unprecedented public scrutiny for his treatment of dead soldiers' families, following an ambush on troops helping to fight Islamic …

  2. In fear and vigilance, a Tampa neighborhood holds its breath

    K12

    TAMPA — There was a time, not long ago, when Wayne Capaz would go for a stroll at night and Christina Rodriguez would shop whenever she wanted. Michael Fuller would go to his night job as a line cook, not too worried about his wife at home.

    More than 50 people gathered and walked in the Southeast Seminole Heights community Friday to pay respects to the victims of three shootings. The crowd took a moment of silence at the corner of 11th Street and East New Orleans where Monica Hoffa was found dead. [JONATHAN CAPRIEL  |  Times]
  3. Fennelly: What's not to like about Lightning's start?

    Lightning Strikes

    BRANDON — No one is engraving the Stanley Cup. No one has begun stuffing the league MVP ballot box for Nikita Kucherov.

    The Lightning, with a win tonight, would match the best start in franchise history, 7-1-1 in the 2003-04 Cup season.
  4. Study: Pollution kills 9 million a year, costs $4.6 trillion

    World

    NEW DELHI — Environmental pollution — from filthy air to contaminated water — is killing more people every year than all war and violence in the world. More than smoking, hunger or natural disasters. More than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.

    New Delhi’s landmark India Gate, a war memorial, is engulfed in morning smog on Friday.
  5. Quarterback Jameis Winston will start Sunday for the Bucs

    Bucs

    TAMPA — Jameis Winston hadn't thrown in practice since he injured his right shoulder in Sunday's loss at Arizona, and with that uncertainty, a wide line of TV cameras and reporters' cellphones were all out Friday morning, recording the moment as Winston tested his shoulder with his first throws early in …

    Despite a sore shoulder, Jameis Winston will be making his 38th consecutive start since being drafted first overall in 2015.