Tom Fudge: Our top story on Midday Edition, the march of technology has made war more horrible than our ancestors ever imagined. When we think of that, we likely think of nuclear bombs, but what should we think of drones? They’re amazing bundles of modern technology allowing airstrikes to occur via computer control and GPS. On one hand, the US military and the Obama administration see unmanned aerial vehicles as they are also called as aircraft that can hit our enemies very accurately wherever they are. Critics see violations of privacy, illegality, and the killing of innocent civilians. My guest to talk about this subject is Marjorie Cohn. She is a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and author of a new book called Drones and Targeted Killing: The Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issue. She joins me in studio, and thank you very much for coming in. Marjorie Cohn: My pleasure, Tom. Tom Fudge: Well, Marjorie Cohn, tell us about your book. This is a collection of writings on US airstrikes abroad? Marjorie Cohn: It is indeed, the foreword is written by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who reacts to American exceptionalism where Americans are not so concerned when our bombs kill people in other countries, but when drones kill citizens, US citizens, then they are concerned, and then lawyers, philosophers, policy analysts, activists talk about different aspects of this policy. Tom Fudge: When did the US start using drones for targeted killings? Marjorie Cohn: It really started during the Bush administration when there was a targeted killing of a car in Yemen, and Obama has taken it to a new level. During the Obama administration more people have been killed by drones than died on 9/11. Drones are Obama’s weapon of choice for targeted killings. Tom Fudge: So, where do these drone strikes occur typically and who are they going after? Marjorie Cohn: The drone strikes have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in areas where we are not formally at war such as Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, and now most recently Syria, and they are going after so called militants or terrorists, but less than two percent of the people killed by US drones are high level al-Qaida or Taliban leaders. Tom Fudge: Where did you get that information, according to whom? Marjorie Cohn: The information comes from several sources including I believe the Council on Foreign Relations. Tom Fudge: I didn’t have time to read this book, but based on what I did have time to read and the promotional blurbs on the book cover, this entire collection of essay seems to make the case against drone killings, would you agree? Marjorie Cohn: I certainly would. Tom Fudge: Okay, well, so why did you write this book, what was your purpose? Marjorie Cohn: I wrote this book, because the number of people and mostly civilians by the way have been killed with drones, was increasing under the Obama administration, it is Obama’s weapon of choice, because American pilots can’t be shot down, and we don’t really hear about it, it’s off of our radar, but not only is this policy illegal, not only is it immoral, but it actually is counterproductive, it actually creates more enemies against the United States, not less, because when people see their loved ones being killed by drones, being taken out, the rescuers, the people at funerals, women and children, they want to do us harm and so it’s actually – the blowback from drones actually hurts the United States. Tom Fudge: You know I mentioned the fear of nuclear weapons in my introduction, you – the first essay in your book I believe is called Why Drones are More Dangerous than Nuclear Weapons by Richard Falk, more dangerous than nuclear weapons? Marjorie Cohn: The reason that he takes this position is that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, except for deterrence and coercive diplomacy, but drones are used, increasingly they’re subject to no regulation and the proliferation of drones, and we see this in this country with photography drones and drones at the border, surveillance drones, and I think we’re going to see armed drones at the border eventually. Drones from Amazon, drones all over the place, drones, near-misses between drones and airplanes at airports, because of this technology, it’s only going to become more pervasive and so I thought that it was important to shed light on this practice. Tom Fudge: Well, you gotten into this already a bit, but what is the moral argument against drones? Marjorie Cohn: The moral argument is that although the people, the people in charge, people in power say that they’re very precise, they are not. They don’t – they’re only as precise as the intelligence that we receive, and many times we don’t get the so called bad guys, we get other people, we get civilians, and this is immoral. It’s also illegal because it’s illegal under the Geneva Conventions to indiscriminately target civilians. Tom Fudge: Well, the Pentagon would probably argue that they’re not indiscriminately targeting people. Marjorie Cohn: Well, then why do 98% of these drone attacks hit people who are not high level al-Qaida and Taliban leaders, if that’s the case? Tom Fudge: My guest is Marjorie Cohn. She is a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and author of Drones and Targeted Killing: The Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Earlier today, I spoke with a man who takes a different opinion on drones, and we’re going to hear from him for a few minutes, and after that Marjorie Cohn will have a chance to respond. This is retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, who led the US Air Force’s drone program from 2006 to 2010. General Deptula, why do you believe drones are so effective in the fight against terrorist organizations today? General David Deptula: Well, there is a couple of reasons, Tom. Quite frankly, the biggest one is that the persistence that they provide allows the US government and our allies to observe, evaluate, and act very quickly or to take all the time necessary to be absolutely sure of a particular action before one takes it. As a result of that, they provide us our asymmetric advantage in dealing with challenges like terrorists, but at the same time, their extremely precise means of employing force in a way that actually reduces collateral damage and minimizes casualties more than any other means of force application today. These throw in one other piece that is often misunderstood and overlooked in that drones actually allow for more ethical oversight than any other means of force application. Tom Fudge: Now, there had been innocent who have been killed in drone strikes, do you consider that to be a problem? General David Deptula: Look, innocent people losing their lives is a challenge using any means of force application, but the use of drones is a means to minimize the loss of innocent lives. What people tend to forget is that it is the terrorists that are intentionally killing innocent men, women, and children, and that’s one of the principle reasons why we’re engaging them. Tom Fudge: Well, let me ask you this. When there are innocent people killed in these drone strikes, is it a problem with the technology or is it a problem with the quality of our intelligence? General David Deptula: Well, it’s more of the reality of combination of technology as well as knowledge of a particular environment, I mean if in fact you’re using lethal force, technology has allowed us to reduce the potential of collateral damage to a degree that is really amazing relative to the kinds of weapons that were used in the past, or that are currently used today with large degrees of error potential, but it’s really a combination of both, but let me give you a quick, a real quick example. The nominal mis-distance of a weapon employed from a drone is under 10 feet, but if you look at a 155 millimeter artillery piece, you’re looking at a 1000 feet. If you’re looking at a mortar, you’re looking at 300 feet. Tom Fudge: So obviously your point is that with those other technologies you’re much more likely to kill innocent people? General David Deptula: Absolutely. Tom Fudge: Now, critics of drones have said that they are conducting illegal assassinations that violate the air space of sovereign countries, what’s your response to that? General David Deptula: It depends upon the particular issue that one is addressing, and so I think that, you know, a generic accusation like that is a relatively baseless unless you get into a particular example. Tom Fudge: Well, let’s say it’s a drone strike over Pakistan, it’s a drone strike over Afghanistan, do you consider those to be a legitimate targets that…? General David Deptula: Absolutely. Tom Fudge: Okay. Why do you say that? General David Deptula: Because they’re done in conjunction with the approval and understanding of the host nation governments. Tom Fudge: What evidence do we have the drones have been very effective in fighting al-Qaida? General David Deptula: Well, I think the statistics that actually exist would tell you that. In fact, the leadership of al-Qaida’s organization has been decimated through the combination of the use of drones along with other means, and I don’t think anybody questions those statistics. You certainly don’t want to be the chief of al-Qaida operations, because the last three have all been dispatched as a result of counter terrorism operations that include the use of drones. Tom Fudge: Finally, General Deptula, in what way have drones… are drones an example of how warfare has changed in the modern age? General David Deptula: Well, first I would tell you that the nature of warfare as long as human beings populate the earth, will remain the same. You will have conflict that ultimately will escalate to the use of force for one side to attempt to impose its will over another. However, every increasing technologies that are inherent in systems like drones, at least by those who abhor the loss of civilian life and are trying to combat evil, have introduced a way to minimize casualties unintentionally of bystanders and innocents as well as those upon which the force is being applied to the absolute minimum. Tom Fudge: Well, I have been speaking with Lieutenant General David Deptula, US Air Force retired. General, thank you very much. General David Deptula: All right, you have a great day. Tom Fudge: And I’m Tom Fudge, you’re listening the Midday Edition. My guest in studio is Marjorie Cohn, law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, author of a book called Drones and Targeted Killing: The Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Well, Marjorie Cohn, you heard what General Deptula had to say. He is saying if anything, drones are less likely to hurt innocent people. Marjorie Cohn: Well, actually, as I say in the introduction to my book, a study based on classified military data conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses and the Center for Civilians in Conflict found that the use of drones in Afghanistan has caused 10 times more civilian deaths than manned fighter aircraft. It is illegal to target someone off the battlefield and Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen were not at war with them, it violates due process, due process means that you arrest somebody and you charge them with a crime, you don’t just take them out, and yet, Obama has what is called the kill list where he decides who he is going to take out this week. He mounts what are called signature strikes. Doesn’t even know who he is killing, he is killing everyone in an area of suspicious activity. These things terrorize communities, the drones are hovering constantly, the kids are terrified, they can’t sleep, they don’t go to school, and the next level of technology that’s being developed, lethal automated robot systems, won’t have any human input at all, but the computer itself will decide who, when, and where to target. Tom Fudge: But why is it drone different from any other weapon or tool used in warfare? Marjorie Cohn: Because it has the surveillance capability of identifying someone. And even in the battlefield situation, it’s the scenario of the sleeping soldier or the naked soldier where you’re hovering, you’re doing surveillance, and then you’re taking them out not on the battlefield, but when he is at his most vulnerable, and plus the fact that they have this, they can spend hours, I think 30, more than 30 hours in the air hovering before they decide to actually – it actually drop a bomb and this is terrifying to communities, it makes them resent the United States even more. Tom Fudge: Well, if not drones to eliminate terrorists in remote areas, what’s the alternative? Marjorie Cohn: The alternative is a complete reanalysis of our foreign policy where we invade countries illegally, where we kill their people, we torture their people, we occupy their lands, we support other countries that illegally occupy other people’s lands, and that is what makes people hate us. It’s not our democracy, it’s our foreign policy, and until that happens, we are going to be victimized by terrorism. Tom Fudge: Well, but if the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with another country and feels it has the right to attack, what kind of weapon should it use? Marjorie Cohn: Well, first of all, the United States is engaged in illegal wars, and I have detailed this in prior books. Both the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars were illegal wars, violated the UN charter, and so if the United States feels that it should be at war, that doesn’t make it legal. We shouldn’t be there, we should not be in 800 different places where we have military bases. We need to stop trying to control the entire world because that’s what makes us vulnerable to terrorism. Tom Fudge: Well, it sounds like your objection is more to American foreign policy, not to the technology of drones. Marjorie Cohn: It’s both. It’s both. My objection is both to American foreign policy and the technology of drones, which are not as precise as the General would lead us to believe. If they were, why would there be such large numbers of civilian casualties. So the weapon itself is not really doing what our government is saying that it’s doing. Tom Fudge: Well, Marjorie Cohn has been my guest. She is a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and author of Drones and Targeted Killing: The Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. Thank you very much for coming in. Marjorie Cohn: My pleasure, Tom. [music…] Tom Fudge: You’re listening to Midday. We’re going to take a break. When we return, we will mark MLK day by talking about the Voting Rights Act and the fact that it’s been struck down by the courts. What’s next. Stay tuned. [music…]
"Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues" includes contributions from various people including:
• Desmond Tutu, a social rights activist from South Africa, who was the first black Archbishop of Cape Town. He's known for his role in the apartheid movement in South Africa.
• Medea Benjamin, a political activist, is the founder of nonprofit CODEPINK — Women For Peace. The nongovernmental organization focuses on anti-war issues.
• Harry Van der Linden, a professor of philosophy and religion at Butler University, is the editor of the Radical Philosophy Review. His works cover issues such as warfare.
In her new book, "Drones and Targeted Killing," Thomas Jefferson School of Law Professor Marjorie Cohn includes a collection of writings that examine the legal, moral and political issues surrounding U.S drone strikes overseas.
The book includes analysis by a number of experts including human rights and political activists, policy analysts, lawyers and legal scholars.
Cohn told KPBS's Midday Edition she objects to how the U.S. military is using drones because she said drones are ineffective in targeting terror suspects.
"They're going after so called militants or terrorists, but less than 2 percent of the people killed by U.S. drones are high level Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders," she said.
But retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who led the U.S. Air Force's drone program for four years, said drones do work.
"They're extremely precise means of employing force in a way that actually reduces collateral damage and minimizes casualties more than other means of force application today," Deptula said.
Cohn is a former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She specializes in criminal law and lectures on human rights and U.S foreign policy.
Excerpt from the introduction of "Drones and Targeted Killing" by Marjorie Cohn:
In his 2009 acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama declared, "Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war." By the time Obama accepted the award, one year into his presidency, he had ordered more drone strikes than George W. Bush had authorized during his two presidential terms.
The Bush administration detained and tortured suspected terrorists. The Obama administration has chosen to illegally assassinate them, often with the use of drones. The continued indefinite detention of men at Guantánamo belies Obama's pledge two days after his first inauguration to close the prison camp there. However, Obama has added only one detainee to the Guantánamo roster. "This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo] they are going to kill them," according to John Bellinger, who formulated the Bush administration's drone policy.
On "Terror Tuesdays," Obama and John Brennan, Obama's former counterterrorism adviser, now CIA director, go through the "kill list" to identify which individuals should be assassinated that week. The Obama administration has developed a creative method to count the civilian casualties from these assassinations. All military-age men killed in a drone strike zone are considered to be combatants "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Brennan falsely claimed in 2011 that no civilians had been killed in drone strikes in nearly a year.
Obama orders two different types of drone attacks: personality strikes that target "named, high-value terrorists," and signature strikes that target training camps and "suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants." In the signature strikes, sometimes called "crowd killings," the Obama administration often doesn't even know who are they killing. "But," write Jo Becker and Scott Shane in the New York Times, "some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist 'signature' were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks,' the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued."
Before taking the life of a person off the battlefield, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to arrest a suspect, inform him of the charges against him, and provide him with a fair trial. But like his predecessor, Obama defines virtually the entire world as a battlefield, ostensibly obviating the necessity to provide due process before execution.
