Legality of Target Acquisition: The U.S. Needs a Drone Board

3010120-inline-dronemap.jpg

 

More than 3,000 deaths from the U.S. drone program worldwide are on the public record

Recently we learned that a US drone strike in Pakistan inadvertently killed an American and an Italian held as hostages by al Qaeda. The strike also killed a US citizen who was a prominent member of al Qaeda. A separate operation in January killed an American-born al Qaeda spokesman. The deaths of hostages Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Portois are tragic and the Obama administration has pledged to conduct an independent review to understand how to prevent this type of grievous mistake. The apparently unintentional killings of two American al Qaeda operatives raise an additional question that President Obama did not address in his televised statement today: under what circumstances may the United States intentionally use targeted lethal force against a US citizen abroad?
The Obama Administration has previously considered the question; several years ago, Justice Department lawyers set out the legal rationale for targeting radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki, a dual Yemeni-US citizen, in a now-public white paper and redacted memo. Satisfied that Awlaki was a permissible target, President Obama authorized a CIA-led operation that culminated in drone aircraft, armed with Hellfire missiles, striking and killing the cleric in Yemen in 2011.
So why bother rehashing the question? For one, lawyers across the ideological spectrum have challenged the Justice Department’s legal reasoning. In particular, critics argue that secret and internal executive branch review, however painstaking and careful, does not satisfy the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
How it works now
The current scheme is rigorous, but insulated from outside review and accountability. Indeed, the ACLU filed a lawsuit last month seeking Obama administration documents that establish the criteria for placement on the “kill list” for the use of lethal force. Military and executive branch departments nominate, vet, and validate candidates for the “kill list,” considering the legality of each strike and potential operational impact. The nominations trickle up to the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, and to the National Security Council, or NSC, before the President signs off. 
Judicial Oversight
The US government concedes that the Fifth Amendment, in particular the Due Process Clause, applies to US citizens abroad. The Fifth Amendment establishes that “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But due process does not always mean a trial in a federal court. As former Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed, “‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.” But if a person does not receive a federal court trial to determine whether the government can take away his life, how do we know whether the process he received is the process he is due?
Critics of the Obama Administration’s targeted killing program began recommending greater oversight and judicial review of the decision-making process early in President Obama’s first term. Though Justice Thomas and others scoffed at the notion of a “drone court,” the idea gained traction in policy circles. Some academics have also endorsed the idea of a “drone court,” in which federal judges would undertake a prior review of targeting decisions, in many cases using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a model.
Notwithstanding the support for a drone court, prior review of the President’s targeting decisions by federal judges is not likely to succeed. Perhaps the most significant impediment is constitutional. Granting authority to the judiciary to regulate the president’s conduct of war would limit the President’s constitutionally afforded power as Commander in Chief of the military, thus raising serious separation of powers concerns. 
Recognizing the difficulties that prior review by federal judges poses, some scholars have called for judicial review after a targeting operation. 
Other proposals call for prior review by executive branch officials, or as Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal puts it, a “‘national security court’ housed within the executive branch itself.” However, a military review board is unlikely to be a neutral body when reviewing military intelligence and decision-making. A binding decision would impermissibly constrain the President’s Commander in Chief power. A “national security court” would also be viewed as biased because the President’s own national security advisors, the same people who vet the kill list, would serve as adjudicators. Despite the drawbacks of these proposals, they may be on to something.

A New Model
As a way to provide due process to US citizens, enable accountability for targeting decisions, increase public trust in the decision-making process, and avoid the use of excessive or erroneous force against targets, we propose an executive branch board (Drone Board) that would conduct a prior review of the use of targeted lethal force against U.S. citizens abroad.
The growing risk that US citizens will join terrorist groups around the world and be targeted for killing overseas by their own government creates an imperative to resolve when and how the U.S. government may lawfully use lethal force against its own citizens abroad. A Drone Board would be an important step to provide additional process and greater public confidence in the method of targeting US citizens overseas.
DefenseOne:  http://bit.ly/1Us02wV

« The Future Of Algorithmic Personalisation
Cyber Command: A War That Started Long Ago »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

Alvacomm

Alvacomm

Alvacomm offers holistic VIP cybersecurity services, providing comprehensive protection against cyber threats. Our solutions include risk assessment, threat detection, incident response.

BackupVault

BackupVault

BackupVault is a leading provider of automatic cloud backup and critical data protection against ransomware, insider attacks and hackers for businesses and organisations worldwide.

Resecurity, Inc.

Resecurity, Inc.

Resecurity is a cybersecurity company that delivers a unified platform for endpoint protection, risk management, and cyber threat intelligence.

Clayden Law

Clayden Law

Clayden Law advise global businesses that buy and sell technology products and services. We are experts in information technology, data privacy and cybersecurity law.

Authentic8

Authentic8

Authentic8 transforms how organizations secure and control the use of the web with Silo, its patented cloud browser.

Cognizant

Cognizant

Cognizant offer services and solutions for IT Infrastructure Security, Enterprise Mobility and Internet of Things.

Lockton

Lockton

Lockton is the world’s largest privately owned insurance brokerage firm. Commercial services include Cyber Risk insurance.

Cifas

Cifas

Cifas are leaders in fraud prevention, working closely with UK law enforcement partners.

Cleafy

Cleafy

Cleafy are a team of fraud hunters, cybersecurity experts, data scientists, and software engineers. Our purpose is to make people’s life easier and free from the threats in the digital ecosystem.

UK Cyber Security Forum

UK Cyber Security Forum

UK Cyber Security Forum is a community interest group for cyber security companies in the UK.

HDI Global SE

HDI Global SE

HDI Global SE provides customised insurance solutions for industrial and commercial clients worldwide including Cyber Liability insurance.

SEPPmail

SEPPmail

SEPPmail is a patented e-mail encryption solution to secure your electronic communication.

Accel

Accel

Accel is a leading venture capital firm that invests in people and their companies from the earliest days through all phases of private company growth. Areas of focus include cybersecurity.

FifthDomain

FifthDomain

We are a specialist cyber security education and training company tackling the global cyber security skills shortage.

UMBRA

UMBRA

UMBRA is solely concerned with protecting governments against Nation State attacks. We are not a consumer or enterprise company.

evolutionQ

evolutionQ

evolutionQ delivers quantum-risk management strategies and robust cybersecurity tools designed to be safe in an era with quantum computing technologies.

Core to Cloud

Core to Cloud

Core to Cloud provide consultancy and technical support for the planning and implementation of sustainable security strategies.

TriCIS

TriCIS

TriCIS design and engineer highly secure integrated solutions that meet the highest government and military security standards, providing information assurance to organisations across the globe.

The Purple Guys

The Purple Guys

The Purple Guys offer Trouble-Free IT Support to businesses across the Central and Southern US. Safe and Secure, Rapid Response, Friendly Support that’s our Purple Promise.

RAD Security

RAD Security

RAD Security (formerly KSOC) is a cloud native security company that empowers engineering and security teams to drive innovation so they can focus on growth versus security problems.

Pango

Pango

Pango is a leading provider of digital consumer security solutions.