Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

Mission Creep in the War on Terror

  • Broadcast in Politics Conservative
GGT183ab

GGT183ab

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow GGT183ab.
h:176539
s:4565881
archived
Play
When a government is accused of activities that stretch or violate the law, it has three choices: 1) change the activities to conform with the law; 2) change the law to conform with the activities; or 3) lie (about the nature of the activities, the meaning of the law, or both).
 
Option 3 isn't a comfortable one for the Obama administration, which is prone to outright lying. Some senior officials tolerate a moderate amount of fudging and obfuscation, but when the fudge factor gets too high, it induces visible queasiness. Over the last couple of weeks, we've seen more than a little such discomfort on the faces of those stuck with justifying U.S. drone policy to Congress and the public.
 
That's not surprising: As the targets of U.S. drone strikes have expanded from senior Taliban and al Qaeda operatives to a far broader range of individuals with only the most tenuous links to al Qaeda, the administration's legal arguments for targeted killings have grown ever more tortured and complex. In particular, it's gotten progressively more difficult for officials to avoid blushing while claiming that U.S. drone policy is fully consistent with Congress's 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
 
Washington Post reported last weekend, some administration officials are apparently considering asking Congress for a new, improved "AUMF 2.0," one that would place U.S. drone policy on firmer legal footing.

Facebook comments

Available when logged-in to Facebook and if Targeting Cookies are enabled