The "Drone," a Remote-Controlled Poison

The removal of Anwar al-Awlaki, head of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaida, and the intensive use of drones show the will of Barack Obama to send a message to the public. This is a paradox of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s not that naïve to be surprised to see the 2009 Noble Peace Prize winner legitimize, with so many secrets and so few reserves, the usage of drones called “hunter killers.” The removal of Anwar al-Awlaki, head of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaida and three of his associates on Sept. 30 in Yemen, shows the will of Barack Obama to send a message to the public as well as to the enemies of the United States: The fight against terrorism is in fact a war in itself. It’s a detailed response to all those who campaign against the future Democratic nominee, in particular among Republicans, who criticize him for being too “soft” against the Islamist threat.

Targeted assassinations prohibited in peacetime

But facts are stubborn. To complicate the situation, it so happens that al-Awlaki was an American citizen, as was one of his jihadist accomplices, whose criminal nature as head of a website, is much less obvious. In view of this, the use of drones cannot be legally justified except on the strict condition that the United States is part of an armed conflict. Only targeted killings carried out in times of war do not violate Executive Order 12333 (signed in 1981), which prohibits this practice in peacetime. Except that al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, which, until further notice, was not part of a war zone.

Needless to say, the direction of Obama, even if it proves politically worthwhile in view of his re-election campaign, raises more problems than it solves and carries the risk of a sinister addiction. Admittedly, 62 percent of Americans approve of his response to the terrorist threat. However, during his mandate, the Democratic president has authorized 255 firing drones on the territory of Pakistan alone, five times more than during the entire Bush era. The technique itself is not an issue; by their nature drones are very reliable and manageable, and they are used to limit the amount of collateral damage — something which a bombing, even a highly targeted one, cannot guarantee (as we saw in Libya).

However, their use brings about a wave of objections. Should the calm and cold technician who guides this unit from Nevada or Virginia (sites of CIA headquarters) be judged more innocent than a tense fighter pilot in his cockpit — and, thus, do “laws of warfare” apply? Can the person giving the orders, in this case the president of the United States himself, be permanently exempt from any questioning? By extrapolation, with regard to authoritarian regimes, one instantly thinks of Russia or China; would they one day be permitted the same freedom on the territory of their opponents, Georgia or Taiwan, or even on their own soil as in Chechnya or Tibet? Recall that in 2006 the Russian parliament authorized the president to hunt down terrorists across borders.

The most questionable point comes from the secret and highly confidential nature of these operations; they are run entirely by the CIA. From the elimination of a military adversary to targeted killings, there is only one step, which requires a minimum amount of monitoring over the decision. The fact that the U.S. Department of Justice had authorized the operation against al-Awlaki only on the grounds of intelligence pushes aside the presidential decree prohibiting assassination, demonstrating a disturbing breach in the system. It is now right to require that the use of drones by the CIA be fully integrated into the chain of command of conventional forces. Again, the performance “technology” of the United States cannot be accomplished at the expense of fundamental principles on which the nation relies on. Otherwise the U.S. risks this turning into the new Guantanamo.