Congress looks to limit drone strikes

The ScanEagle drone, in image from website of its manufacturer, Boeing subsidiary Insitution / Insitu.com

Updated 10:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.

The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House's pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday.

• U.K. sends hand-held helicopter drones to war zone
• U.N. opens investigation into U.S. drone killings
• Miller on Brennan: An "architect of the drone process"
• U.S. military wants to hide drones under the sea

The White House on Tuesday defended its lethal drone program by citing the very laws that some in Congress once believed were appropriate in the years immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks but now think may be too broad.

Play Video

Drone rules require congressional "consultation," Carney says

"It has to be in the agenda of this Congress to reconsider the scope of action of drones and use of deadly force by the United States around the world because the original authorization of use of force, I think, is being strained to its limits," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a recent interview.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday that "it deserves a serious look at how we make the decisions in government to take out, kill, eliminate, whatever word you want to use, not just American citizens but other citizens as well."

Hoyer added: "We ought to carefully review our policies as a country."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee likely will hold hearings on U.S. drone policy, an aide said Tuesday, and Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, both have quietly expressed concerns about the deadly operations. And earlier this week, a group of 11 Democratic and Republican senators urged President Barack Obama to release a classified Justice Department legal opinion justifying when U.S. counterterror missions, including drone strikes, can be used to kill American citizens abroad.

Without those documents, it's impossible for Congress and the public to decide "whether this authority has been properly defined, and whether the president's power to deliberately kill Americans is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards," the senators wrote.

It was a repeated request after receiving last June an unclassified Justice Department memo, which fell short of giving the senators all the information they requested.

First detailed publicly by NBC News late Monday, the memo for the first time outlines the Obama administration's decision to kill al Qaeda terror suspects without any evidence that specific and imminent plots are being planned against the United States.

Play Video

Al Qaeda leader killed by U.S. drone

"The threat posed by al Qaeda and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat," concluded the document.

The memo was immediately decried by civil liberties groups as "flawed" and "profoundly disturbing" — especially in light of 2011 U.S. drone strikes in Yemen that killed three American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki was linked to the planning and execution of several attacks targeting U.S. and Western interests, including the attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and the plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010. His son was killed in a separate strike on a suspected al Qaeda den. Khan was an al Qaeda propagandist.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, echoing comments Brennan made in a speech last April, called the strikes legal, ethical and wise and said they are covered by a law that Congress approved allowing the use of military force against al Qaeda.

Play Video

Carney: Drones "significantly" limit civilian casualties

"And certainly, under that authority, the president acts in the United States' interest to protect the United States and its citizens from al Qaeda," Carney said Tuesday.

"It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda," Carney said. "It is a matter of fact that al Qaeda is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11th of 2001."

Three days after 9/11, Congress approved a law authorizing the military to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda and other groups believed to be helping or harboring the global terror network, including the use of drone strikes. In the decade since the attacks, U.S. intelligence officials say, al Qaeda has splintered into a number of affiliates and allied sympathizers. That means the current laws could allow military force against thousands of extremists across the Mideast and North Africa who have limited or no ability to strike the United States.

Currently, both the CIA and the U.S. military are authorized to remotely pilot unmanned, missile-carrying drones against terror suspects. It's unknown exactly how many strikes have been carried out, but experts say that drone attacks in Pakistan are conducted by the CIA, while those in Yemen and Somalia, for example, are by military forces.

The drones have strained diplomacy between the U.S. and the nations where the strikes are carried out, as civilians have been killed alongside the targeted terrorists, even though most nations have given Washington at least tacit agreement to carry out the attacks.

A Middle Eastern diplomat said that in Yemen, for example, an uptick of U.S. drone strikes last month have killed dozens of people and upset the local public, leading some leaders in Sanaa to reconsider how often they should be used. The diplomat spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity to avoid political retribution from the Obama administration.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Tr0ntech]

They ordered and carried out the execution of American citizens. No congressional oversight. No court involvement. Isn't that considered MURDER?!? Obama was judge and jury, and our own military were the executioners.

This is the slipperiest of slopes. It was the founding fathers' greatest fear - that our government could order military action against its citizens. They SPECIFICALLY forbade this action in an obscure document called "The Constitution of the United States of America" ... also known as "The Supreme Law of the Land".

Of course we understand that CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC along with all the smaller "News" agencies will try to bury this. After all, any criticism of Obama's policies is met with accusations of racism. You need to ask one question. What would have happened if George W. Bush had ordered the execution of U.S. citizens without any semblance of due process? Would we understand that he was trying to keep us safe, or would we call for his impeachment and imprisonment?

[Ulgnud]

xx

[logictoo]

I saw a story about this on Fox News and knew then it was a lie because if it was true it would not have been on Fox. The nerve of that Fox News bunch even hinting that the U.S. can kill an American citizen without due process. Any Liberal would surely laugh -Ha Ha at Fox.

[Ulgnud]

Keep laughing. If you are in place with a targeted terrorist you will likely get popped too.

[War-Criminal-Obama]

This is truly terrifying and exactly the sort of thing that our founding fathers were concerned about. This is precisely why the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment exists. Eric Holder's assertion that "due process" has been performed by executive review in these cases is laughable at best. English and other European monarchs were notorious for having anyone that they deemed an "enemy of the state", citizen or otherwise, killed or indefinitely imprisoned. How is this any different? Do these people deserve to die? Yeah, probably, but that's not for the President to decide unilaterally and with blatant disregard for the Constitution.

[SHOULDERBLADE]

War-Criminal-Obama, very good post. Senator Bob Corker's comments were right on, at last someone to voice resentment at this disregard for our Constitution, a brilliant document that has the wolves out after it. Have you heard the insulting expression, "Constitutional Fundamentalist"?

[War-Criminal-Obama]

So, we can't water board terrorists for information that could save lives but we can kill American citizens if we suspect them of a "high-level" government official believes the target is an operational leader of al Qaeda who poses "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States"? Typical Liberals, protect the terrorists from getting water boarding not the American citizen from being "suspected" of terrorists attacks.

So now a "high-level" government bureaucrat can decide that any American citizen is a "terrorist" (an EXTREMELY ambiguous label) and order his or her execution without any proof, evidence , or trial and the White House thinks this is legal, ethical and wise?!?! This is the most disturbing policy I've ever heard of and a fundamental violation of our Constitutionally protected rights. I feel sorry for the future and the world we let our "leaders" create in a shortsighted and misguided attempt to protect our own safety.

[SHOULDERBLADE]

Right on!

[Republicon_Liar_Rob-Me]

LOL.....Obama is a true war criminal killing American citizens suspected of being terrorists, woman and children with massive drone attacks.
It is also like his unconstitutional provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act he signed where he even allows American citizens to be held indefinitely with out legal counsel and being charged of a crime. You just disappear!
He went even further than the Patriot Act his D'Rat and left winger minions were whining and protesting about.

......Where is their outcry now ?????
Where is Amnesty International in charging him as a war criminal and calling for his arrest?

Where is the mainstream media's out cry and demonizing this true evil Communist???

[jpcmca2003]

Your mainstream media loves Obama and wouldnt do such a thing and shed him in a bad light....Foxnews reported this story weeks ago, but you libs have pointed out that they try to scare everyone!....Doesnt seem that way now.

[ammo17]

kill them over there so they can`t kill us here.we are at war with the taliban and alqueda,we did not start this war they killed 3000 of our citizens who were just going to work and felt no fear of being attacked and killed.what the hell is wrong with thinking of the people of this country who worry about killing some low life american who wants to kill us?tell all these americans who join the taliban to wear an american flag on their back,this way we can try avoid killing them when they are trying to kill our troops.

[SHOULDERBLADE]

Why are we at war with Alqueda? Why should we care about Israel and the land they stole? What has it got us beside 911, which no one really knows who did, but we know who is responsible?

[Tr0ntech]

I agree that these guys were traitors and probably deserved to die. The question here is not about what was done but about who made the decision. In this case maybe killing them was the right call. The next time maybe not. This is why we have courts and why the President has Congressional oversight. It's to prevent him from crossing too far over the line.

[Barry-been-inhalin]

Sooo..... We can't waterboard terrorist non-citizens; however, we can assassinate terrorist citizens or citizens we have suspicions about. Got it, ok.

[nclaw441]

Where is Code Pink? Where is the ACLU? Where are the demonstrations?

[sandy 1027]

The policy raises some real questions.However,it sounds like there are extenuating circumstances in some instances-such as logistical problems and those possibly involved in terrorist plots moving around a lot to avoid being caught.Apprehending those involved may be difficult, and jeopardize the lives of American soldiers and/or agents.Violating the rights [of due process] of U.S. citizens is a serious issue, but what is the responsibility of the citizen to his/her country in cases such as this?Collaborating with known terrorists abroad on activities that pose an "imminent" threat to your government and fellow citizens adds another dimension to this; and should be stopped.These are probably operations carried out in good faith by the administration.Nevertheless, if the Bush administration came under scrutiny for wiretapping without warrants, there certainly needs to be some form of accountability for this policy, even if by way of review, after the fact, for good governance.