President Barack
Obama's use of unmanned drone attack planes as part of a wider U.S.
counterterrorism strategy is facing growing scrutiny. Some critics say the
program increasingly lacks oversight and transparency. Analysts have mixed
views on whether the program has evolved from its intended mission.
Republican Senator Rand
Paul has stepped up his criticism of Obama's use of drones after using the
issue to temporarily hold up John Brennan's confirmation as head of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
Paul told the
Conservative Political Action Conference on Wednesday that his chief concern is
the limit of presidential powers.
"The filibuster
was about drones, but also about much more. Do we have a Bill of Rights? Do we
have a constitution and will we defend it?" asked Paul.
On VOA's Encounter
program, analysts debated whether the Obama administration has allowed the
drone program to move beyond its original mission. The Atlantic Council's Danya
Greenfield said the original counterterrorism goals were very specific.
"When the drone
program was initiated, there was a fairly stringent criteria that had to be met
- essentially that the person targeted had to be planning or involved with
imminent attacks, that they had to be un-apprehendable, and consistent with the
rules of war," said Greenfield.
Greenfield
said that has changed.
"Now what we are
seeing is an expansion into what’s been called signature strikes. So, instead
of targeting an individual based on a specific set of intelligence and their
identity, they are being targeted based on suspicious behavior or a series of
actions that might be suspicious, and where the identity of that individual is
not necessarily known. And, I think this leaves a lot of room for
mistakes in terms of intelligence and targeting," said Greenfield.
Thomas Lynch of the
National Defense University disagrees. In his view, the U.S. drone program
needs to move forward.
"I think it is
high time, and welcomed time, for the administration to evolve the program, to
look at it moving forward," he said.
Lynch said the targeted
strikes have been very effective in regions including the Horn of Africa,
Somalia and Yemen. He said the exception is Pakistan.
"I have been one
advocating suspending drone strikes in Pakistan because in that case, I thought
the weight of animosity in the Pakistani populace of 180 million people was,
after a certain number of al-Qaida operatives had been killed and eliminated by
about 2011, that that weight was disproportionate to what we were getting out
of it," he said.
The U.S. strategy is
under scrutiny in Pakistan, where covert U.S. drone strikes have been reported
in the tribal region along the Afghan border. A United Nations team
investigating civilian casualties from the strikes says Pakistan considers the
use of U.S. drones on its territory a violation of its sovereignty.
In a March 14 report,
team lead Ben Emmerson also said Pakistan considers the drone campaign
counterproductive and believes it can perpetuate terrorism in the region. The
development indicates that debate over the costs and benefits of the program is
likely to continue.
Obama has pledged to
continue to engage Congress on counterterrorism efforts.
In his State of the
Union speech in February, the president said he would do so to ensure that the
"targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists" remained
consistent with U.S. laws and its system of checks and balances.
Sources :
http://www.voanews.com/content/transparency_oversight_of_us_drone_program_debated/1622644.html
No comments:
Post a Comment