We are all Creatures of the Constitution

Esme Ellis

Attack of the drones-It sounds like the title of an all-too predictable Star Wars film. This, however, is America's latest military trend, and it is far from simple or miraculous,contrary to the eager proclamations of the Obama administrations' top advisors.

Why does the Obama administration endorse drone warefare? They simply believe it reduces troop loss , perhaps in an effort to change the troop loss numbers which can be used as fodder against the administration during this critical time of re-election. In fact, acording to the September 27th New York Times Article , the month of September has been busy: "the CIA launched 20 attacks with armed drone aircraft thus far in September, the most ever during a single month."

Precisely because there is no on the ground co-ordination, drone attacks do not possess that incredibly important element of human reaction in split-second circumstances. This is seen as a gain by the Obama administration- I am withholding judgement until further facts come to the general public's attention to draw a conclusion, but I assume you can estimate what camp I have thrown my lot in with.

As far as addressing the question, the Obama administration has been frustratingly flip aboutr the whole thing. The lack of transparency about these attacks are addressed with statements like " Drones are equipped with precise weapons and intelligence, so there's no need to worry about mistakes or deadly errors."

What a drone can accomplish has been proved. The attacks have driven high level leaders into hiding, and they have scourged the Northern Waziristani country side clean, but at a cost that our military is reluctant to inform us about. The American public has very little information about the targets, their crimes, or their relevance.

Allow me now to draw your attention to the lawsuit filed last month, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. It is filed by the father of an American citizen who has been put on a short list for immeadiate "deprivation of life" upon sight. The man in question has been hiding in Yemen since January, with no contact to either his father or his counsel, as it might endanger his position and thus, result in his "deprivation of life" by means of targeted drone attack. His father is defending his right to both trial and a charge backed by substantial proof within an American court, choosing not to rely on the American governments standards for designation of terrorists and terrorist threats.The ALCU also filed a freedom of information act asking for more informtation about drone strikes in January, basically the whens, whys and the wheres.

On the order of the Joint Special Operations Command, American citizens are targeted and then eliminated- no trial, and most certainly no charges having been brought against them. They are added to a shortlist, and then, as soon as is feasible, they will be eliminated. There is no check to balance these decisions- they are on executive order and executive order alone.

Reading through the complaint for relief and the preliminary injuctions of Al-Aulaqi v Obama(which can be found on the ACLU website), " We reject the idea that when the United States acts against its citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States in entirely a creature of the Consitution. Its power and authority have no other source." What a fantastic way to put it.

And really, all we're asking for here is a formal notice of our termination. Anwar Al-Aulaqi may in fact be part of a terrorist organization with nefarious intentions towards the United States. However, our judicial system is idealized to provide room for the details which cannot always be accounted for by the system. Thus why someone should explain to the Joint Special Operations COmmand why they can't just name a terorist and eliminate them. There is always a risk of mistake,even in the surest of cases.

Every American citizen's life is to be determined by the three branches of government. That was an agreement, I thought, perhaps one of the few we all continue to agree on. Irrelevant- here's the point: America may be able to pick and choose what laws she goes along with internationally, but in America her leaders are accountable to us, if no-one else. We ought to be a little more forceful about that every once in a while.