The Hill
Feinstein, Leahy push for court oversight of armed drone strikes
Senate intelligence panel member Ron Wyden (D-Org.) raised the issue of transparency on Thursday, pressing Brennan on whether CIA would publicly accept responsibility for mistakenly labeling an individual as a terror suspect and taking them out via armed drones.
Surprisingly, Brennan told Wyden and the Senate panel that under his leadership, CIA would be willing to publicly admit when an individual is mistakenly targeted and taken out by U.S. drones.
“As far as I am concerned … the U.S. should [publicly] acknowledge it,” he told the Senate panel.
Public admission of a mistaken drone strike, or the strike itself, would represent a break from the classified status of the entire U.S. armed drone strike program.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I guess F-16s and standoff missiles are a-ok.
JamesSeanMcKeane on February 10, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Oversight is basic.
But killing terrorists with drones is just as basic.
profitsbeard on February 10, 2013 at 6:12 PM
I don’t have a problem with the drone strikes, or the judicial oversight- provided the oversight can be completed in a timely manner and there is some language that allows for imminent action based upon actionable intelligence. It’ll be interesting to see all how many supporters of FISA circa Bush come out against it now.
BKeyser on February 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM
I guess all the conservatives who oppose these assassinations are in favor of criminal trials on American soil, right?
JamesSeanMcKeane on February 10, 2013 at 6:19 PM
The government can’t execute American citizens unless a jury of their peers finds them guilty of a qualifying offense, such as treason. “Court oversight” by a judge or a small panel of judges is insufficient.
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Best analysis I’ve seen so far is by J. E. Dyer (big surprise, right?)
AesopFan on February 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM
You mean the government can’t kill them on the battlefield? Or if they shoot at police in a robbery? I hope you don’t mean that and are just using shorthand?
There are exigent circumstances where the government doesn’t have to give us due process or where it can deny us our rights.
Now, deliberately targetting US citizens not on the battlefield and not engaging in violence is another matter.
I think this is more complicated than just saying they can never do it or they can always do it.
SteveMG on February 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM
Not sure this is a “conservatives VS liberals” debate. It’s more a “rational VS irrational” debate.
The primary opposition to criminal trials of these terrorists on American soil is that they result in terrorism being treated not as a national security matter, but as a legal matter. That’s the Democrat legal “reasoning” by which Bill Clinton left his successor 9/11.
Had Holder and his puppetmaster succeeded in their wish to try KSM and the other 9/11 perps in the Federal Court in Lower Manhattan, those trials would not be about the perps themselves-the US itself would be on trial.
In addition, the current President and Attorney General belong to a political Party that in the past has always loved to go Judge-Shopping and Jury-Shopping solely to get the legal results they desire. Democrat Judicial Activism, in fact, almost changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida.
Our current (Democrat) Vice President was widely quoted in 2011 as saying the Republican Party was equal to al Qaeda. Should people like him be the Judges?
Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM
KSM and his lawyers have been gaming the military court system for years now.
Imagine what they’d do in civilian court?
Military tribunals are good enough for the men and women in uniform. That’s good enough for these folks too. There’s enough safeguards to prevent wrongs.
SteveMG on February 10, 2013 at 6:54 PM
I can see a national security/FISA-like court overseeing strikes that target US citizens. But oversight of all drone strikes?
What’s the difference between a drone strike and a strike from a piloted plane? Should the courts review them too? No, having courts review this is too much.
SteveMG on February 10, 2013 at 6:59 PM
I’m talking about execution/assassination specifically. If an American citizen is engaged in the commission a violent crime and needs to be killed to save the innocent, for example if they have hostages at gunpoint, or if a citizen is fighting along side our enemies on a traditional battlefield and are killed as part of a broader enemy force, that is not an execution/assassination. But in the case of Awlaki and especially his son and his cousin a trial by a jury of their American peers was required.
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 6:59 PM
KSM isn’t an American citizen and isn’t entitled to a jury of his American peers because he doesn’t have any.
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 7:02 PM
The Fifth Amendment says otherwise: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process…”
He has some rights; not all the ones we do but some. I don’t think he needs to have a trial – civilian or military. The Combat Status Review Tribunals are good enough for me.
As to Awlaki’s son and cousin: they weren’t targetted by the military. They were travelling with an AQ senior leader who was being targetted. Sadly, they were killed too but not, from everything I’ve read, deliberately.
SteveMG on February 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM
By that I didn’t intend to say he had a right to a civilian trial. Just that he does have, under the constitution, some due process rights.
You don’t have to be a US citizen to be afforded protections – some, not all – under the constitution.
SteveMG on February 10, 2013 at 7:19 PM
Would it really be any different if the Drone was under Yemen army control when the hellfire missile was fired. They did not want Alwaki there either but unlike Osama, Pakistan ISI was protecting him. They would not allow a drone to take him out so the seals were needed. The Yemen forces could not arrest him or take him out without risking lives so they use a CIA controlled drone to do it. No report are out that Yemen had any objection to the drone strike they even may have said thank you.
The check is done by the country that allows a drone strike. They can get a court of their own and then ask for an American drone for help. Unless they are protecting an ALQA terror camp they should allow the help. They would not do a drone strike in Iran or Syria ect as that would be an act of war. It would change if there is no real government like Libya right after the coup and before new elections.
tjexcite on February 10, 2013 at 7:32 PM
Regardless, the main point I’m making in this thread is that the ruling class, which includes judges, are not allowed to decide for themselves to execute American citizens, only a jury of American citizens can make such determinations after a fair and impartial trial.
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 7:42 PM
…and “court oversight” is not allowed to replace “jury oversight” in such matters.
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM
So you’re saying it’s OK for the American government to assassinate Americans without due process if foreigners say it’s OK?
FloatingRock on February 10, 2013 at 7:47 PM