By Juliet Lapidos
July 14, 2009
Last month, (click here) the Central Intelligence Agency canceled a secret initiative, authorized by the president in 2001, to capture or kill senior al-Qaida operatives. Although the program was never operational, its existence raises the question: Can we assassinate anyone we want?
No, but the exact regulations are murky. Gerald Ford's 1976 executive order on foreign intelligence activities (issued after the disclosure that the CIA had plans to do in Fidel Castro) explicitly prohibits government employees from engaging in "political assassination." This certainly rules out killing heads of state through covert means. It's unclear, however, who else is off limits. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution that grants the president the right to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those who helped commit the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, arguably licenses the CIA to go after terrorists with impunity....
July 14, 2009
Last month, (click here) the Central Intelligence Agency canceled a secret initiative, authorized by the president in 2001, to capture or kill senior al-Qaida operatives. Although the program was never operational, its existence raises the question: Can we assassinate anyone we want?
No, but the exact regulations are murky. Gerald Ford's 1976 executive order on foreign intelligence activities (issued after the disclosure that the CIA had plans to do in Fidel Castro) explicitly prohibits government employees from engaging in "political assassination." This certainly rules out killing heads of state through covert means. It's unclear, however, who else is off limits. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution that grants the president the right to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those who helped commit the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, arguably licenses the CIA to go after terrorists with impunity....
...Yet it would not be OK for nonsoldiers such as CIA agents to engage in killing of any kind, since the fact that they're not in uniforms....
A uniform stands between assassination and not. A uniformed personnel.
CLOTH.
Amazing.
...In that case, sending soldiers or other operatives to pick off terrorists would be an extrajudicial, paramilitary action against a private group—no different from sending the CIA to Italy to murder suspected members of the mafia—and a violation of the basic notions of state sovereignty....
Does international law recognize the sovereign right of an individual against it's own country of birth?
The American drone program goes beyond combat. It specializes in targeted assassinations with a very high failure rate which involves civilians. In realizing the high failure rate of the drone program, it provides more impetus to war. It provides reasons for innocent civilians to take up arms to defeat the dreaded drone. It increases the chance a drone strike will result in retaliation and escalate war. The American drone program IS a reason to war. It's mere presence results in escalation. The United States as a nation will be in perpetual war unless this inhumane method of weaponry is outlawed.
The Geneva Conventions must convene to increase the emphasis on 'the cost of war' in regard to human losses. If a country is permitted to carry out computerized killing there is no human risk affiliated with it. The Geneva Conventions to date deals with conventional war. How is any nation to protect itself by mounting an effort against machines without conscience?
This is hideous. Completely inhumane. And has the potential to annihilate vast numbers of humans in the name of 'self-defense.'
Can you imagine a Richard Cheney or a George Bush being allowed to conduct raids with these machines? The very attack in Najaf, Iraq was reversed because a wise Ayatollah called innocent civilians to march and stop the slaughter on sacred ground. If it were drones instead of tanks manned with American soldiers, they would not have stood a chance. Today, the leader of those people is fully engaged in seeking democracy because he had no clue about how to conduct it at the time his Mosque was under attack. All he understood was the attack and nothing else. He understood how his life was to defend the land and god he was devoted to.
I remind, at the time of the September 11th invasion into Afghanistan, those people had no televisions, no modern communication and had no concept to the attacks that killed all those people on USA soil. Yet, they were to understand soldiers that arrived to defend their country. These people are going to understand drones? They are going to understand how cessation of hostilities will end the deaths by machine?
Can the world stand by and simply expect that the USA will do the right thing? It certainly hasn't in the recent past. And now, it doesn't even follow it's own rules in regard to the citizens born within it's borders.
