Just War theory normally does not come up during hearings on Presidential appointments for the position of Director of the CIA, but in the case of the confirmation of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the secretive U.S. drone program, it should.
Just War theory informs the leaked confidential Justice Department memo on the U.S. drone strike policy that lays out the case for the constitutionality of targeting Americans abroad for execution by drones. The memo makes explicit reference to the “four fundamental law of war principles…necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity (the avoidance of unnecessary suffering).”
These four principles named in the memo are based on the “Christian Just War doctrine” originally developed by Saints Ambrose and Augustine, and later refined by Thomas Aquinas. Just War doctrine sought a middle way on the use of force by the state between the pacifism of the early Christian church on the one hand, the idea of “Holy War” or crusade on the other. It authorizes the use of force by the state but only within these principles.
The Justice Department memo makes a case for the legality of drone strikes to kill Americans abroad who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack.” This is a reference to “self-defense.” Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.”
The “inherent right of self-defense” is another clear reference to moral reasoning on war as represented by Just War theory.
The problem is, the Justice Department memo doesn’t limit the legality argument to what would be commonly understood as “imminent threat” and thus the justification of “self-defense,” but in fact so expands “imminent” as to redefine it completely and undercut the notion that the targeted killing is in self-defense.
The memo states, “First, the definition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
The “immediate future” is the very definition of “imminent.” How can it mean anything else? But this twisting of definitions to fit expediency is now a familiar refrain in justification for the use of lethal violence by the U.S. abroad in the last decade. We saw it in the redefinitions of “imminent” threat in the Bush administration’s justification for the attack on Iraq.
In December of 2002, the United States Institute of Peace invited four experts on ethics and Just War theory to present papers on the topic, “Would an Invasion of Iraq Be a ‘Just War’?” and published a report. I was one of the four invited to present these published papers, but it was Gerard Powers, Director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who made the argument against the redefinition of “imminent.”
“What is disturbing is that the Bush administration has taken the concept of preemption as an option in exceptional cases and turned it into a new doctrine about the legitimacy of the unilateral use of preventive war to deal not just with imminent threats, but with merely potential or gathering dangers. Justifying preventive war in this way would represent a sharp departure from just war norms.”
This is the same issue, the expansion of “imminent threats” to mean “potential or gathering dangers.”
I am grieved to make this comparison. One of the most inspiring and even profound speeches on both Just War theory and Just Peace theory I have ever heard was President Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. In that speech, I argued, “The president said that the ‘old architecture’ of thinking about war and peace is ‘buckling.’ What is required now, argued the President, is to ‘think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of just peace.’” I called this the “Obama doctrine.” I was wrong.
Drone strikes are used for targeted killing of Americans and others deemed a threat to the U.S. in an Obama administration policy that is far too expansive. Drone strikes are also killing innocent civilians and thus killing the possibilities of “just peace.”
A March, 2011 drone strike killed at least 38 civilians in Pakistan. A Pakistani tribal elder, Malik Faridullah, described the result of the so-called “precision bombing.” “There were no bodies, only body parts — hands, legs and eyes scattered around. I could not recognize anyone. People carried away the body parts in shopping bags and clothing or with bits of wood, whatever they could find.”
Should we then be surprised when tribal leaders in this part of Pakistan vow “revenge” against the United States? “We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy,” some of the elders said in a statement. How much is the accelerating failure of our foreign policy goals in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state increasingly at odds with the US, the product of such drone attacks? And how little we may understand of the long-term sabotage of our capacity to re-build this relationship in the future.
Mr. President, in your Nobel Peace Prize address you began with these inspiring words: “[F]or all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.”
Please, because our actions do matter, change all of your policy on drone strikes.