Skip to main content

On Monday, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan publicly addressed the U.S. use of drone strikes against suspected terrorists in countries with which the United States is not at war, like Yemen and Pakistan. The fact that Brennan publicly addressed the drone strikes is a significant improvement, long overdue. We can't say we have meaningful democratic oversight over government policy if government officials refuse to talk about government policy in public - enabling us to challenge what they say - and it's preposterous to claim that the drone strikes are "secret" when they are openly reported in the media.

But John Brennan didn't tell the whole truth about the drone strikes. Brennan claimed that "the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists," but Brennan didn't admit that the U.S. has launched drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen against people who are not known to be on any list of "suspected terrorists," without knowing who would be killed.

Brennan's statement that "the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists" gives the impression that the U.S. only conducts drone strikes against people "on a list," as President Obama claimed in January. As the New York Times  and the Washington Post have reported, this is not true: in Pakistan and now in Yemen, the President has authorized "signature strikes" against people who are not on a list, but fit a "profile" of "suspicious activity." Senior U.S. officials have warned that these "profiling strikes" raise the risk of killing civilians and the risk of killing people who had no relationship to attacks on the United States, which in the case of Yemen, could increase the perception that the U.S. is taking sides in Yemen's internal conflict with people in the south who feel disenfranchised by the central government.

Not only do "signature strikes" increase the risk of killing civilians and people who have no dispute with the U.S.; their existence is crucial to the question of whether the drone strikes are legal. John Brennan claimed that the drone strikes are legal under the 2001 authorization of military force, but as law scholar Bruce Ackerman has noted, that Congressional resolution authorized force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks and those who harbored them, not against unknown people in Yemen whose reported behavior fits a "profile" of suspected terrorist activity.    

On Monday, Brennan acknowledged that U.S. drone strikes have killed innocent civilians. But Brennan claimed civilian deaths have been "exceedingly rare." This raises the question of what Brennan's notion of "exceedingly rare" is. The New America Foundation has estimated that the "non-military fatality rate" of drone strikes is 13%. Is something that happens 13% of the time "exceedingly rare"? About 14% of days are Sundays. Are Sundays "exceedingly rare"?

Congress could do something about this. The National Defense Authorization Act is coming up for consideration. Members of Congress could move to amend the NDAA to prohibit "signature" drone strikes.

On May 19, John Brennan is scheduled to give the commencement address at Fordham University. This is a very appropriate occasion to challenge John Brennan to tell the whole truth about drone strikes. A commencement speaker is supposed to be an exemplary person who inspires new graduates to do good. One thing the Wall Street meltdown showed was the need to inspire young people to tell the whole truth. George Washington was not reported to have said, "I cannot tell a lie: I didn't do everything I could to stop the cherry tree from being chopped down." Let John Brennan set a good example for our youth. Urge John Brennan to tell the American people the whole truth about the drone strikes.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy.


John Brennan should tell the whole truth about the drone strikes

88%8 votes
11%1 votes

| 9 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ending the signature strikes is one thing but I (3+ / 0-)

    can't help but wonder how long the AUMF from 2001 is going to stay in place, i.e., how long the global war on terror will be fought.  Over 10 1/2 years and counting and when it stops nobody knows.

  •  Robert - while more transparency and honesty (0+ / 0-)

    from John Brennen would be admirable, using a commencement address as the forum would not be a good idea. This is something Brennen can do at any time at the National Press Club, or even a White House Press Conference. The graduates of Fordham should hear an uplifting speech on public service, or some other message, that would personally touch the graduates, their friends and families. A speech about drone strikes would seem really out of place.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:59:58 PM PDT

  •  Agree. (0+ / 0-)

    But Mr. Brennan needs to do more than just come clean on signature strikes, though that is of vital importance.  

    I want this "list" of al-Qaeda targets approved by Obama for assassination to be subject to strict oversight by the appropriate members of Congress.  If the President is to claim such overwhelming power, we may need a new committee to oversee his use of that power.

    I want the list of American citizens approved by Obama for assassination divulged, rescinded, and destroyed...followed by an act of Congress banning the President from targeting American citizens outside of an internationally recognized battle zone, and then only if they are active combatants.  

    I want the families of every civilian killed by drone strikes compensated for their loss, with the deepest apologies of the United States, directly from the President.  This compensation should also be extended to Nasser al Awlaki for the death of his 16 year old grandson.

    I want the operational command of this program transferred from the CIA to the Pentagon, and for it to be subject to oversight by the appropriate committee.

    Finally, I want international guidelines negotiated by the UN governing use of military drones outside of active, recognized battle zones.  Many, many other nations are quickly acquiring this technology, so these guidelines are sorely needed immediately.

    None of the above steps are likely to be taken, of course.  Especially the one about oversight of a declared Presidential power.  No President in history has given up a power once he has asserted it, and this assassination power will be no exception.  So, finally, let me add one more thing that I want:  for the Nobel Committee to apologize to the world, at the United Nations, for its award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who claims the power of life and death over anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time he chooses.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site