Fresh off of an interview yesterday in which he shrugged off civilian killings in the US drone war, top White House adviser John O. Brennan was ordered to provide more “openness” on the program at a speech today in Washington.
This time, Brennan centered on the legality of the strikes, insisting that not only does the Constitution allow the president to assassinate people anywhere on the planet, but that the drone program was “legal, ethical and wise.”
Brennan went on to insist that there was “nothing in international law” that prohibits launching attacks on “enemies” outside of actual battlegrounds. Several organizations took issue with this and his other claims.
The ACLU took issue in particular with the claim that secret discussions within the executive branch on who to assassinate constituted “due process,” while urging the White House to release the Justice Department memos on how they came to the conclusion that such things were legal.
Amnesty International’s counterterrorism head Tom Parker, a former top British official, said that drones were clearly a “legitimate weapon of war” but said that there was a “problem” with declaring the whole planet a battlezone.
Human Rights Watch also criticized the comments, saying that “direct participation [in] hostilities is the test for lethal targeting under international humanitarian law,” and that this would preclude attacking people outside of the actual warzones.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Exodus From Eastern Ghouta as Syrian Army Appears to Near Victory - March 18th, 2018
- Pentagon Defends Keeping Niger Attacks Secret - March 18th, 2018
- Trump Administration Scrambles to Convince Congress Not to Halt Yemen War - March 18th, 2018
- Sen. Corker Predicts Trump Will Withdraw From Iran Deal in May - March 18th, 2018
- May Says Britain Considers More Steps Against Russia in Coming Days - March 18th, 2018