The Domestic Drone Threat
By Ron Paul
In late
February, senators threatened to put a “hold” on the nomination of John Brennan to be Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director over his
refusal to answer questions about the use of
drones to kill Americans on United States soil. That the president’s
nominee to head the agency that has used
drones to kill perhaps thousands overseas
could not deny their possible use at home should be shocking. How did we get to this point?
The Obama
administration has rapidly expanded the use of drones
overseas, as they appear a way to expand U.S.military action without the political risk of American boots on the ground. In fact
they are one of the main reasons a recent
Gallup survey of Pakistan, where most U.S.
drone strikes take place, found that 92% disapprove
of U.S. leadership. This is the lowest approval rate
Pakistan citizens have ever given to the U.S.
And it is directly related to U.S. drone strikes. The risk of blowback
increases all the time. However the false
propaganda about the success of our drone
program overseas leads officials to believe that drones should also be used
over U.S. soil as well.
In an
attempt to ease criticism of the use of drones against Americans, some in Congress propose more oversight, as if that should make us feel any better. In
the recent hearings, CIA nominee Brennan suggested that he was open to a congressional proposal to set up a secret court to oversee the president’s program to
kill Americans by drone. Should we cheer that a court
selected by government officials will meet in secret
to oversee the president’s secret decisions on killing Americans without charge
or trial? Has the Constitution been so eroded
that we accept such a horrific and terrifying
prospect?
While
touting the success of its overseas drone program, the U.S. administration refuses to even admit publicly that the CIA has an overseas drone program. In response to a recent American Civil Liberties
Union Freedom of Information request regarding the existence of the CIA’s drone program, the Department of Justice responded,
“the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of
such documents is itself classified.” How is
that for government transparency?
Recently,
Federal Aviation Administration Unmanned Aircraft Systems Executive Jim
Williams stated that no armed drones would
presently be permitted in U.S. airspace. But what good are the promises of government officials when the Constitution, and especially the Fourth Amendment, has been gutted? More than 1,400 applications to use drones
in U.S. airspace have been approved, including for police, universities, and at least seven federal agencies. Do we want to live in
a society where the government is constantly
watching us from above? The East Germans and Soviets could only dream of such technology in the days of their dictatorship.
We might ask ourselves how long before
“extraordinary” circumstances will lead to a decision
to arm those drones over U.S. territory.
The U.S.
government justified its attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq and against Muammar
Qaddafi in Libya, and elsewhere, with
claims that these despots were killing their
own citizens without trial or due process. It is true that extra-juridical
killing is the opposite of justice in a free
society.
As Judge
Andrew Napolitano wrote recently about the president’s assassination program,
“When [the president] kills without due
process, he disobeys the laws he has sworn to
uphold, no matter who agrees with him. When we talk about killing as if it were golf, we debase ourselves. And when the government kills and we put our heads in the sand, woe to
us when there is no place to hide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment