Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Posted by Mr. K at 5:47 PM
With the Obama administration's signature approach to warfare, drone strikes, coming under both public and congressional scrutiny, there is a proposal to force the federal government to go through a legal system to justify such military actions, in order to check the ability to use such weaponry with disregard and bring some form of legitimacy to it.
As an ardent supporter of drone strikes and using whatever tool the federal government has in the fight to destroy and dismantle al-Qaeda and affiliated terror networks, I am annoyed by this proposal, as I find a
"drone court" to be inherently unjust to the powers of the executive branch, and tactically dangerous in a modern 24/7 conflict.
First off, in regards to specifically targeting enemies already set out by congressional act, or under the War Powers Resolution, the executive branch in coordination with military and intelligence assets has the right, authority and constitutional obligation to do so without any form of obstruction, especially in a modern war where conditions on the ground are constantly changing.
And so, well, I don't think any other reasons are actually necessary, but does anyone seriously think we will win the minds of angry Pakistani militants over if we have a secret court approve our drone strikes on taliban leaders?
That's what I thought, so who would we actually be trying to prove legitimacy to? Our NATO allies? Our Arab allies? The anti-american mobs in the street? And since the objective of the federal government falls under the simple guideline of protect and defend the United States of America from all enemies, using any and all tools to complete that mission, who really cares whether anyone approves of our methods?
I freaking don't, and thus my opposition to the drone courts.