The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Editorials

February 23, 2013

Our View: Drone policy needs stricter oversight

In his 1953 inaugural speech, President Dwight Eisenhower — a warrior famous for helping lead the Allies to victory in World War II — said “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

Today, our warfare technologies are advancing to the point where combatants never have to face the horrors of war. And so it is with the accelerated use of drones by the United States. We have escalated their usage, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan as we pull our troops out of harm’s way.

The use of drones became more controversial when we learned the Obama administration was secretly ordering such strikes, bypassing the Pentagon, and the controversy grew when it was learned such attacks were being leveled against American citizens overseas. Since then, the president has agreed to give the intelligence committees of both chambers access to a classified legal opinion it is using to justify use of drones to kill U.S. terror suspects on foreign soil.

The administration says it is justified in killing such Americans so long as an “informed, high-level official” determines that individual is an “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” This is so vague it was argued that even low-level functionaries in a Mideast desert could make the call. It further argues that this is an executive decision and as such is not subject to external review.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said he wants a federal court, not Obama, to make that decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said a court deciding such matters would be “the worst thing in the world.” Meanwhile, some Democrats are more incensed about a movie’s depiction about America’s use of waterboarding than they are about the use of drones.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “No person shall be … deprived of life … without due process of law.” Proponents of the administration’s policy argue that the “war on terror” is unique and demands different rules in order to keep America safe. This is a slippery slope at best and at worst is morally inconsistent with our values as a democracy.

Pressure rose to end the Vietnam War grew when America learned of the ever-rising body count. The profound sadness of seeing flag-draped coffins arrive back home sparked outrage and demands for accountability. Today, with the use of drones, there are no such images — at least not at home. It has made it much easier to wage war on faceless people and even ignore the collateral damage to foreign civilians that inevitably occurs.

Drones allow the administration to wage a shadow war with casualty numbers hidden and now even bypassing our own rules and laws of due process in the killing of some of our own citizens. This is too much power in the hands of any president.

Any policy that authorizes the administration to kill anyone — even in war — should require accountability. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution following the Vietnam War to establish procedures by which the president and Congress would follow before introducing troops abroad to armed conflicts.

The intention was to ensure there were safeguards and oversight in place before committing ourselves to war. Lawmakers must honor that intent — even if troops are not involved. We are a nation of laws. Transparency and shared approval of America’s commitment needs tremendous vetting before initiating policy, especially now that we have video game-like technology that “sanitizes” the ability to wage war.

We have made killing much too easy and that requires significantly more accountability.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials
  • Safety event helped special kids

    May 25, 2013

  • Our View: Stadium gimmick backfires Officials badly misjudged or misled with electronic pulltab financing.

    May 24, 2013

  • Timing still legislative problem One can appreciate the deliberative, legislative process in Minnesota. We can respect the hours and hours of time legislators put in debating important issues. But time management seems to be an issue whatever party reins. This year is no different.

    May 22, 2013

  • Legislature: Vows kept, mistakes made

    There will be plenty for Gov. Mark Dayton and the DFL legislative majority to crow about this week after the conclusion of the session Monday night.

    May 21, 2013

  • Our View: Lakes reveal chemical abundance Even if your mother may not have had scientific data at her fingertips, she obviously knew what she was talking about when she said don't drink lake water. A new study makes that advice more important than ever and raises concerns about how we treat

    May 20, 2013

  • Press 'shield law' is a bad idea Press 'shield law' is a bad idea The Obama administration announced last week that it is throwing its support behind the press shield law that has been stalled in Congress since time immemorial. Critics insist that the administration, suddenly mired

    May 19, 2013

  • mfp thumbgraphic Shelter for homeless right start To Mankato civic leaders for, once again, stepping up to address a growing demand for shelter by homeless women. The needs appears to be dramatic and continuing even though the Theresa House, Welcome Inn shelters and the CADA House program for domest

    May 18, 2013 1 Photo

  • Our View: SEC should act on ratings conflicts Money talks. In the continuing dispute over the all-too-cozy relationship between the people who create and sell financial products and the people who rate their risk, the money says: Shut up and let us do what we want. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken and

    May 17, 2013

  • Time runs short for Legislature Focus, Minnesota legislators, as you have many details left So much for the theory that one party controlling Minnesota's House, Senate and governor's chair would mean fast work in St. Paul. Exactly one week from the end of the 2013 regular session a

    May 16, 2013

  • records' seizure harms free press This has not been a good week for President Obama. First it was learned that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting conservative organizations with special scrutiny, the practice of which the White House said it was unaware. Then news surfaced th

    May 16, 2013