Death Penalty by Joystick

An adviser to President Obama claims unmanned drone attacks are ethically defensible. Moreover, he says, they are in agreement with both U.S. and international law. But he didn’t address the important questions.

Despite his somewhat limited candor, U.S. counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan now admits that the United States is using unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists but stopped short of answering important questions.

How many people have been killed by unmanned drones since their deployment? What’s the deal with getting presidential authorization to attack terrorism suspects even thought they may not have been clearly identified? Are the Pakistani and Yemeni governments given warnings before the U.S. launches attacks on their soil?

Brennan’s explanations are a step in the right direction, but they aren’t enough by any means. Transparency isn’t created by a presidential adviser merely claiming such attacks are ethically defensible and within the bounds of the law.

Only independent judges can make such decisions and, in the case of America’s death sentences by joystick, the bottom line is that only an international court of law is competent to decide. We cannot expect much from the American courts, because thus far they have supported U.S. government secret-mongering.