I have my own misgivings about drone strikes. One can fairly argue whether the presence of terrorists in the Pakistani border area, in Yemen, in Somalia and now perhaps in Mali, is a great enough threat to justify action on our part. And if one does believe that action is justified, one can argue whether drones are an appropriate form of action and, if so, whether the drone strikes are being done with adequate restraint. But the argument that the more humane alternative to drone strikes is a return to Bush-era practices is unconvincing, for a number of reasons.
First of all, there is no reason whatever why we cannot treat captured terrorists humanely and not subject them to torture/enhanced interrogation. Bush apologists simply dismiss such an alternative out of hand. To the extent they offer any reason for it, it is usually that we need these techniques to gain information. Well, obviously no one killed by a drone strike is going to give any information, so nothing is lost in terms of intelligence by capturing terrorists and not questioning them at all. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to assume that we will learn at least something using the Army Field Manual, and something is better than nothing. In short, they present no evidence whatever that it is the burden of treating captured terrorists humanely that is the obstacle to their capture.
There is some obstacle in the question of where to hold terrorists captured abroad, but the obstacles are purely political. There is no logistical or security reason why we could not bring terrorists to the US or hold them in prisons on military bases somewhere around the world. In fact, the Obama Administration has brought a handful of terrorists or pirates captured abroad home, and nothing terrible has happened. The only thing preventing him is the hysteria and fear Bush supporters have whipped up. It is more than a little disingenuous to whip up hysteria preventing holding terrorists anywhere but Guantanamo and them argue that see, it is impractical.
As for the question of indefinite detention without trial, since Obama has formally committed to it in at least some cases, that can hardly be an issue. Granted, Obama wants to limit the practice to terrorists captured by the Bush Administration who (for various reasons) are not triable, and to try any captured terrorists going forward. Once again, the obstacle to trying them in criminal court is not that the practice cannot work, but that such hysteria has been whipped up as to make it politically impossible. Anyhow, Congress has passed legislation requiring terrorists captured abroad to be tried before military commissions, so any wish Obama may have to try them in civilian courts can hardly be the obstacle to their capture
At the risk of stating the obvious, the real obstacle to our capturing terrorists in places where drone warfare is going on is not what to do with them afterwards, but how to get them in the first place. Capture would mean sending in ground troops, i.e., invading Pakistan, Yemen and possible Somalia or Mali. No one, so far as I know, is seriously advocating such a course of action. Granted, Bush apologists may argue that we captured plenty of terrorists in countries the world over where we did not have ground troops, including Pakistan. That is true, but in those cases there was a government that was willing and able to do the capturing. Our drone strike are not occurring in countries with governments willing and able to capture or arrest terrorists for us. They are taking place in areas beyond the control of their local governments -- the Af-Pak border, inland Yemen, and possibly Somalia and now Mali. It would not have to be our ground troops making the capture, but someone's ground troops would have to. The drone strikes are taking place in areas where that is not much of an option.
Finally, once we realize that the real issue is not what to do with captives once caught, but how to send in the troops to make the capture, the question of humanity becomes a lot iffier. First of all, there is no question that our drones do kill innocent bystanders, although the rate is controversial. It is not controversial that the drones terrorize a lot more people than they kill. In Guantanamo and our other War on Terror prisons, many innocent people were held and mistreated, but few were killed. An innocent person held by mistake can, after all be released once the mistake is discovered. A person killed by mistake cannot be brought back to life. But the focus on prisoners only is too narrow. Once one takes into account that capturing terrorists means that someone has to send in ground troops to do it, the proper point of comparison is how many innocent bystanders would be killed in case of such an invasion, and how that compares with the number killed by drones. I don't know the answer; I doubt Bush apologists have given it much thought. Certainly our ground troops in Iraq caused a lot more civilian casualties than the drones ever have.
None of this is intended as a defense of the Obama drone warfare. But the Bush Administration defenders are arguing that (1) Obama's policies are worse than Bush's'; (2) it was the rejection of Bush era policies of torture and indefinite, lawless detention that have forced the Obama Administration into its current policies; and (3) there are no other alternative. These arguments simply aren't plausible.
No comments:
Post a Comment