3 questions to ask about US drone policy

The white paper released in Feb. 2013 detailing the Obama administration’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killings has stirred plenty of controversy. Serious questions about the policy came up again during the Senate confirmation hearing for new CIA director John Brennan. And Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky drew attention to concerns about the constitutionality of certain drone strikes with his 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor, delaying the vote to confirm Mr. Brennan.

White House spokesman Jay Carney has defended the drone policy, asserting after the February memo was released: “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.” But rather than closing the debate, that statement frames the three essential questions Americans should be asking about US drone policy.

1. Is it legal?

Lt. Col.. Leslie Pratt/US Air Force/AP/File
An MQ-9 Reaper drone flies over southern Afghanistan. Op-ed contributor Joel H. Rosenthal says there are three essential questions people should be asking about US drone policy.

Legal justification is blurred by two competing frameworks: the law of armed conflict and the criminal justice approach.

On the one hand, the Obama administration has embraced the criminal justice model, moving away from the language of the “global war on terrorism” and looking to try 9/11 conspirators in civilian courts. On the other hand, by engaging in executive action to target and kill enemies of the state, Mr. Obama has embraced the core doctrine of the war approach, which bypasses the legal due process of the criminal justice system.

1 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.