<html>
<body>
<h1><b>The 'Obama doctrine': kill, don't
detain</b></h1><font size=3>George Bush left a big problem in the shape
of Guantánamo. The solution? Don't capture bad guys, assassinate by
drone<br><br>
Sunday 11 April 2010 18.00 BST <br>
</font><font size=1>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/11/obama-national-security-drone-guantanamo" eudora="autourl">
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/11/obama-national-security-drone-guantanamo<br>
<br>
</a></font><font size=3>In 2001,
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html">
Charles Krauthammer</a> first coined the phrase
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine">"Bush
Doctrine"</a>, which would later become associated most
significantly with the legal anomaly known as pre-emptive strike.
Understanding the doctrine with hindsight could lead to a further
understanding of the legacy that the former administration left – the
choice to place concerns of national security over even the most
entrenched norms of due process and the rule of law. It is, indeed, this
doctrine that united people across the world in their condemnation of
Guantánamo Bay.<br><br>
The ambitious desire to close Guantánamo hailed the coming of a new era,
a feeling implicitly recognised by the
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-norway">
Nobel peace prize that President Obama</a> received. Unfortunately, what
we witnessed was a false dawn. The lawyers for the Guantánamo detainees
with whom I am in touch in the US speak of their dismay as they prepare
for Obama to do the one thing they never expected – to send the detainees
back to the military commissions – a decision that will lose Obama all
support he once had within the human rights community.<br><br>
Worse still, a completely new trend has emerged that, in many ways, is
more dangerous than the trends under Bush. Extrajudicial killings and
targeted assassinations will soon become the main point of contention
that Obama's administration will need to justify. Although Bush was known
for his support for such policies, the extensive use of drones under
Obama have taken the death count well beyond anything that has been seen
before.<br><br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hongju_Koh">Harold Koh, the
legal adviser to the US state department</a>, explained the
justifications behind unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) when addressing the
American Society of International Law's annual meeting on 25 March
2010:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>"[I]t is the considered view of this administration … that
targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use
of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law,
including the laws of war … As recent events have shown, al-Qaida has not
abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to
attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has
the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its
citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself,
including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who
are planning attacks … [T]his administration has carefully reviewed the
rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are
conducted consistently with law of war principles …<br>
<dd>"[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against
specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus
constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged
in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to
provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely
robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even
more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and
proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at
meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and
execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are
conducted in accordance with all applicable law."<br><br>
</dl>The legal justifications put forward by Koh are reminiscent of the
<a href="http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/439011858/they-did-authorize-torture-but">
arguments that were used by John Yoo and others</a> in their bid to lend
legitimacy to unlawful practices such as rendition, arbitrary detention
and torture. The main cause for concern from Koh's statements is the
implication that protective jurisdiction to which the US feels it is
entitled in order to carry out operations anywhere in the world still
continues under Obama. The laws of war do not allow for the targeting of
individuals outside of the conflict zone, and yet we now find that
extrajudicial killings are taking place in countries as far apart as
Yemen, the Horn of Africa and Pakistan. From a legal and moral
perspective, the rationale provided by the State Department is bankrupt
and only reinforces the stereotype that the US has very little concern
for its own principles.<br><br>
Despite the legalities of what is being conducted, the actuality of
extrajudicial killings, especially through UAVs is frightening. The
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/07/wikileaks-collateral-murder-iraq-video">
recent revelations by WikiLeaks</a> on the killing of civilians by US
Apache helicopters in Iraq has strongly highlighted the opportunities for
misuse surrounding targeting from the air. In the Iraq case, there were
soldiers who were supposed to be using the equipment to identify
so-called combatants, and yet they still managed to catastrophically
target the wrong people. This situation is made even worse in the case of
UAVs, where the operators are far removed from the reality of the
conflict and rely on digital images to see what is taking place on the
ground.<br><br>
Conservative estimates from thinktanks
<a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672">
such as the New American Foundation</a> claim that civilian causalities
from drone attacks are around one in three, although this figure is
disputed by the Pakistani authorities. According to Pakistani official
statistics, every month an average of 58 civilians were killed during
2009. Of the 44 Predator drone attacks that year, only five targets were
correctly identified; the result was over 700 civilian
casualties.<br><br>
Regardless of the figures used, the case that extrajudicial killings are
justified is extremely weak, and the number of civilian casualties is far
too high to justify their continued use.<br><br>
A further twist to the Obama Doctrine is the breaking of a taboo that the
Bush administration balked at – the concept of treating US citizens
outside of the US constitutional process. During the Bush era, the
treatment of detainees such as John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi and Jose
Padilla showed reluctance by officials to treat their own nationals in
the way it had all those of other nationalities (by, for instance,
sending them to Guantánamo Bay and other secret prisons). The policy of
discrimination reserved for US citizens showed that there was a line the
US was not willing to cross.<br><br>
At least, today, we can strike discrimination off the list of grievances
against the current president. The National Security Council of the US
has now given specific permission to the CIA to target certain US
citizens as part of counter-terrorism operations. Specifically,
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html">
Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out</a> for such treatment, as it has
been claimed that he was directly involved in the planning of the Major
Hasan Nidal killings and the Christmas Day bomber attacks. Indeed, it is
claims such as this that bring the entire concept of targeted
assassinations into question. The US would like us to believe that we
should simply trust that they have the relevant evidence and information
to justify such a killing, without bringing the individual to account
before a court.<br><br>
The assumption that trust should be extended to a government that has
involved itself in innumerable unlawful and unconscionable practices
since the start of the war on terror is too much to ask. Whatever
goodwill the US government had after 9/11 was destroyed by the way in
which it prosecuted its wars. Further, the hope that came with the
election of Barack Obama has faded as his policies have indicated nothing
more than a reconfiguration of the basic tenet of the Bush Doctrine –
that the US's national security interests supersede any consideration of
due process or the rule of law. The only difference – witness the rising
civilian body count from drone attacks – being that Obama's doctrine is
even more deadly.<br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>