# Why aren't Progressives questioning the legality & morality of Obama's drone targeting policy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659 "2013-03-11T22:28:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/81 "2013-03-14T21:41:54Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Congress does not have the power to delegate its power to declare war to the President by statute. . . . No. But Congress does have the power to declare war, and to do so by calling it something else. They don’t have to use the phrase “Declare War.” They can use the phrase “Authorize the use of military force.” It has the same power under law. Congress did that. Congress did not “delegate” the power. (e.g., in 1942, did Congress specifically authorize Roosevelt to send troops to Morocco, Burma, etc.? No. They authorized him to conduct war against the enemy. They delegated the specific strategic details to the President. That is a power that Congress does have.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/82 "2013-03-14T21:46:39Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Your implication that only “valid targets” are attacked ascribes a level of competence and moral concern to the CIA that most would not be prepared to attest to. . . . Agreed; this is why no one is making that claim. We damn well know that mistakes have been made, are being made, and will be made. Remember the [air strike on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in the Balkan War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade), back in 1999? To suggest that we believe that no mistakes will ever be made is an arrant straw-man fallacy. We know better (and so should you.) ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/83 "2013-03-14T22:51:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That said, drone strikes are a legal tactic, and no more or less moral than any comparable tactic of force projection. Singling them out seems odd, and even counter-productive. This statement should really answer the OP satisfactorily. I am a Progressive, in that I think that the government has a role to play far beyond what any libertarian or conservative group feels its role is. However, I don’t see any reason this differs morally from sending an F-16, other than it’s cheaper and safer for our side. I don’t see a moral requirement to expose yourself to harm from the enemy as valid, so that difference doesn’t figure into my reasoning. In fact, if I have a problem with the drone program, it’s that I don’t see drones being nearly as useful against a modern adversary. I think they’ll probably be more easily shot down than manned aircraft. Even Iran has shot down one or two of them, and their air defenses aren’t exactly cutting edge. On the other hand, since you’re not losing pilots, you can afford to send more. Quantity has a quality all its own, after all. I still worry that if we become reliant on drones to the exclusion of manned aircraft, we will end up with a less effective air force. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/84 "2013-03-14T22:59:06Z")
The edit window, she was missed. I just thought of a reason to possibly like the drone program. Since it’s an unmanned vehicle, the country whose airspace is being violated can defend itself without fearing too much in the way of consequences. If Iran had shot down two manned spy planes, I’m pretty sure our national attitude toward them would be less friendly than it is even now. It’s not much of an upside, I know. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/85 "2013-03-15T01:13:29Z")
**scabpicker** : It gets deep, quickly! We can say we like it, because no human pilots are at risk. But, as you note, this makes it politically easier for countries to shoot at drones, and so a kind of escalation is encouraged. It makes war “easier” at the same time it makes it less costly. Cordwainer Smith, as a youngster, wrote “War No. 81-Q,” where future wars are fought between remotely-piloted battle-craft. Good? Bad? Or merely different? I very much expect to see future micro-drones, with small-arms attached. Not very long ago, I watched a guy playing with a home-built remote-control helicopter drone (fascinating technology: three helicopter motors on a triangular frame.) It could easily have mounted a handgun and a camera, and, hoy-presto, you’ve got a murder machine. Yeah, it’s fragile, and yeah, it’s noisy, and yeah, you can always just stay indoors… But it probably would cost less than $5,000 to build, especially once you start building hundreds of them at once. How long until someone uses something like that as a tool of domestic terrorism? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/86 "2013-03-15T01:51:28Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > No, it’s not “sophisticated stuff.” The whole reason that terrorist groups engage in operations where one to five people with bombs try to kill thousands of people in schemes with a long shot of success is precisely because they are in an assymetric warfare situation–they don’t have the means or the people to wage traditional combat and they need to keep trying spectacular-style bombing attacks so that the 1 in 20 which succeeds gets noticed. These are exactly the sorts of things that tiny extremist cells have been doing for decades–“Al Qaeda” is at best just the modern version of the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weathermen, etc. When you only have 30 people in your “revolutionary movement” and you want to become part of the media dialogue instead of group that is statistically identical to a group that doesn’t exist at all, bombing/terrorist tactics are what you do. > > The “network” consists of two types of people: disgruntled Muslims who want to blow something up who get funding from four rich Saudi dissidents and are thus linked to “Al-Qaeda” if and when they engage in an overt act, and any group that is both violent and Islamic (like the guys in Mali, for example) which get labeled as “Al-Qaeda in Africa” by American media sources eager to perpetuate the exciting G.I. Joe narrative. The idea that Bush and Obama perpetuate of a hierarchical command of “Al-Qaeda” operating in sync throughout the world a la SPECTRE is what is nonsense. > > And dropping bombs on Pakistani schoolchildren isn’t going to change any of it even if your comic-book view of things was correct! I suppose it depends where you get your information. Bush and Obama would be terribly inaccurate sources of information. Just one, of many, of the guys that bombed one, of many, targets was Ali Mohamed. Fluent in several languages. Seventeen year career in the Egyptian military. Worked as security advisor to CIA. Lived in US, married an American, joined US Army. Trained al Qaeda on missions/planning/surveillance. He ended up helping bomb the US Embassy in Nairobi. Al Qaeda was organized into different cells responsible for different parts of the mission - none of which were aware of the others. One cell would set up a cover business in a country (for Nairobi it was a charity to help poor Africans); one would conduct surveillance of targets; another would carry out the attack; the last would clean up afterward. To me that’s sophisticated. They used that model in many countries that spanned at least 4 continents. This is non-fiction. You can say it’s not sophisticated, that’s an opinion, but you can’t deny how they operated. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/87 "2013-03-15T06:52:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The key difference is, when a Republican President does something like this, it is an impeachable offense. When a Democrat does it, it’s bad but not bad enough to stop voting for the guy. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t think your assessment is true at all. After the 9/11 attacks GW Bush’s approval rating shot up to 90 percent. There had to be a good many Dems and liberals in that mix. Bush carried that high rating without much bitching on the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan’s lawless regions and anywhere else the Bushies went after Terrorists. I supported the Drone attacks when Bush started it. And all but the extreme lefties may have come out against it. Where I and most liberals left Bush was when he invaded Iraq for no reason but to try and tie to the overall war on terror. I never agreed with Bush on his torture policies… as Senator McCain and General Petraeus did not agree with it either. But to say no one on the left went along with Bush’s beginning the use of armed drones on terrorists in lawless parts of the world, seems to be another one of those rightwinger crybaby myths. If you have some data or reports on widespread condemnation of Bush for drone use to kill terrorists outside of Iraq, I’d like to see it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/88 "2013-03-15T07:30:20Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d grant you that drone strikes kill civilians, but is it your contention that the targets of the strikes do not fall within the AUMF’s restriction of “those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] 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” ? I’m backing you up on your reply, and would add that as far as Pakistan goes, I have not heard of any drone launched strikes into the major parts of Pakistan where the government has control and established authority and is able to reasonably enforce civil law and order. Indeed, Obama opted against a bombing run or missile strike on Osama Bin Ladin’s compound because that was in the governed part of Pakistan. There was even the effort to save women and children that lived in the compound. A bunker buster would have wiped them all out and maybe in nearby houses and businessess. And that would have been legal in America’s inherent right to self-defense but unwise and not the best military option. However the areas where the Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda are in parts of Pakistan that were not under the control of the Pakistan government at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Some areas have been cleared and are governed since then, but I would venture a guess that most drone strikes that kill Taliban leaders and whatever civilians are nearby and with them are in areas that remain out of Pakistan government control. So the lawless regions of Pakistan are combat zones and the drone strikes used there are legal tactics of war, even though civilians are at times killed with the targeted leadership. Its not like we would launch a strike at a ‘Starbucks’ in Islamabad to hit a Pakistani male whom we thought was planning a terror attack. But a terrorist leader or fighter, seeking sanctuary s not going to get it from the USA, and be safe from a drone strike if he is hiding from authorities in the following area of the world… > [@](#): > > Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley – located roughly north of Peshawar, Pakistan – is the scene of some of the fiercest fighting in the tribal area during 2008. > > For centuries the wild tribal area – stretching 500 miles along the Afghan border – has been lawless, violent and remote. Today it is a breeding ground for jihad. Taliban and Al Qaeda militants use this area as a launching pad for attacks against neighboring Afghanistan – and a training ground for terrorist attacks worldwide. It is an area of Pakistan the government doesn’t control and it is off limits to the U.S. military and the CIA. > See map on link: > [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/tribal/map.html](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/tribal/map.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/89 "2013-03-15T14:04:05Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Indeed, Obama opted against a bombing run or missile strike on Osama Bin Ladin’s compound because that was in the governed part of Pakistan. There was even the effort to save women and children that lived in the compound. A bunker buster would have wiped them all out and maybe in nearby houses and businessess. And that would have been legal in America’s inherent right to self-defense but unwise and not the best military option. Legal? Since when is bombing a non-enemy nation legal? Either you work with the authorities in that nation (like Germany in 2007), or you declare that nation is, by deliberately harboring enemy combatants, an enemy (like Afghanistan under the Taliban). That’s what sovereignty means. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/90 "2013-03-15T14:43:41Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > Legal? > > Since when is bombing a non-enemy nation legal? > > Either you work with the authorities in that nation (like Germany in 2007), or you declare that nation is, by deliberately harboring enemy combatants, an enemy (like Afghanistan under the Taliban). > > That’s what sovereignty means. I’m not sure it matters what you call them. Pakistan gave us consent for attacks through 2010 that I know of. After that it gets murky (they decry them publicly, but privately had been consenting - and we don’t know what’s been going on in private). As of today, they are stating they do not consent to the attacks publicly or privately. Relevant article: [U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan’s sovereignty, says UN](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/15/wrd-us-pakistan-united-nations-drone-strikes.html?cmp=rss) > [@](#): > > For many years, Pakistan allowed U.S. drones to take off from bases within the country. Documents released by WikiLeaks in 2010 showed that senior Pakistani officials consented to the strikes in private to U.S. diplomats, while at the same time condemning them in public. > > However, Emmerson, the UN investigator, came away with a black and white view after his meetings with Pakistani officials.“The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear,” said Emmerson. “It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” I also don’t think it’s as clear cut as you make it. The nation can consent and let you fight there (Yemen and Pakistan in the past). The nation, not deliberately harboring the enemy, but not wanting any help, can deal with it themselves (Pakistan today). The nation, deliberately harboring, not wanting help (Afghanistan in 2001). Pakistan, having terrorists inside its borders, appears to be a nation that says it will deal with it themselves, but actually won’t deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/91 "2013-03-15T15:07:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **scabpicker** : It gets deep, quickly! We can say we like it, because no human pilots are at risk. But, as you note, this makes it politically easier for countries to shoot at drones, and so a kind of escalation is encouraged. It makes war “easier” at the same time it makes it less costly. > > Cordwainer Smith, as a youngster, wrote “War No. 81-Q,” where future wars are fought between remotely-piloted battle-craft. Good? Bad? Or merely different? > > I very much expect to see future micro-drones, with small-arms attached. > > Not very long ago, I watched a guy playing with a home-built remote-control helicopter drone (fascinating technology: three helicopter motors on a triangular frame.) It could easily have mounted a handgun and a camera, and, hoy-presto, you’ve got a murder machine. Yeah, it’s fragile, and yeah, it’s noisy, and yeah, you can always just stay indoors… But it probably would cost less than $5,000 to build, especially once you start building hundreds of them at once. > > How long until someone uses something like that as a tool of domestic terrorism? It doesn’t make it good, It already is different. When we have groups of drones attacking drones, it’ll be a very different world. When we have clever, autonomous drones, I don’t think I’ll get out from under the bed. However, I don’t see small arms becoming really useful on a drone in combat for the near future, for the same reason that I think they’ll be terrible air-to-air fighters. Missiles work well on them partly because the targeting system is on the missile, and it’s explosive payload means you just have to get close. The time delay between information being collected and sent to the operator, a decision being made, then being sent back to the drone is large. I think it’s large enough that at small arms range, it gives the person who’s present a considerable advantage. Not to mention the delay will also make it difficult to do simple things that are necessary with a gun, such as lead your target. It may be useful for assassinating an unaware target, but without some software aiming that gun for you during the time delay, it’s not going to be very accurate. You’ll always be an instant behind an enemy who’s present in pulling the trigger, though. My experience that leads me to this conclusion, is sadly, online gaming. If you have two people in a FPS with very different ping times, the person with the high ping time is at a noticeable disadvantage. Tactics and strategy (and auto-aimers) can mitigate it, but you still have to account for it, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/92 "2013-03-15T15:31:39Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I also don’t think it’s as clear cut as you make it. The nation can consent and let you fight there (Yemen and Pakistan in the past). The nation, not deliberately harboring the enemy, but not wanting any help, can deal with it themselves (Pakistan today). The nation, deliberately harboring, not wanting help (Afghanistan in 2001). > > Pakistan, having terrorists inside its borders, appears to be a nation that says it will deal with it themselves, but actually won’t deal with it. I intended “work with the nation” to include this possibility – a nation without the security apparatus to rid itself of its own terrorists could subcontract us to conduct military operations within its borders. That would be legal in the sense of acting with the permission of that host nation. Whether or not it was an act of domestic terrorism against that country’s own people is another thing. What I was objecting to was the notion that the US has the “right” to level Downtown Anywhere if we decide we are facing an imminent threat. Doing so without the consent of the host government is the very definition of violation of sovereignty and that government should and (in all but a handful of cases where we had thoroughly compromised them through bribery of intimidation) would regard it as an act of war. This is not to say the USG should never do this. There could be times when war is the responsible thing to do. But war is what it would be. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/93 "2013-03-15T22:13:51Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > . . . However, I don’t see small arms becoming really useful on a drone in combat for the near future, for the same reason that I think they’ll be terrible air-to-air fighters. . . . The time delay between information being collected and sent to the operator, a decision being made, then being sent back to the drone is large. . . . You’re very likely right. However, it’s a technical/engineering challenge, and the weapons makers have been very, very good at solving those over the centuries. You’re probably right…but I won’t put down money on it! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/94 "2013-03-16T02:28:53Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > Legal? > > Since when is bombing a non-enemy nation legal? > > Either you work with the authorities in that nation (like Germany in 2007), or you declare that nation is, by deliberately harboring enemy combatants, an enemy (like Afghanistan under the Taliban). > > That’s what sovereignty means. We are bombing/striking terrorists in a lawless tribal area in Pakistan that is not governed by normal standards of governing authority within a soverign nation’s borders. The attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001 from Afghanistan and the lawless tribal region of Pakistan gave the United States the \*\*inherent right to self defense \*\*to attack terrorists residing and planning attacks from either side of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2013, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/95 "2013-03-16T03:11:02Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > Legal? > > Since when is bombing a non-enemy nation legal? > > Either you work with the authorities in that nation (like Germany in 2007), or you declare that nation is, by deliberately harboring enemy combatants, an enemy (like Afghanistan under the Taliban). > > That’s what sovereignty means. As to bombing OBL’s Compound in Abbottabad Pakistan, that too would be legal under the inherent right to self defense because of the target. But it was risky. What if obl was not there? And we needed to collect the remains if killed in the operatin. Either way, Navy Seal raid or bombing of OBL’s compound was an infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty in Pakistan’s view, but we may never know if the Pakistan Government gave a secret wink and nod to proceed. They had the cover of anger for the Pakistani domestic audience. And the world is rid of one of its worst demons. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/96 "2013-03-20T14:43:35Z")
Technically worthy of a new thread, but I think there’s bit of drone fatigue so I’ll just stick it in this thread. Anyways, some reporting that President Obama is moving the CIA’s drone program over to the Dept of Defense. [No More Drones for CIA](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/exclusive-no-more-drones-for-cia.html): > [@](#): > > Three senior U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that the White House is poised to sign off on a plan to shift the CIA’s lethal targeting program to the Defense Department…The proposed plan would unify the command and control structure of targeted killings and create a uniform set of rules and procedures. The CIA would maintain a role, but the military would have operational control over targeting. I don’t really see that this makes a difference as far as targeting and transparency goes, but I could be enlightened. The article suggests more transparency, but doesn’t clarify how this will be so. Aside from those two differences, one I’m not clear on is whether the Dept of Defense can carry out covert operations on their own or if they must go through the CIA. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659.md?page=4)