1ac drone court

8/10/2019 1AC Drone Court

1/16

Inherency

First, Obama already pushing for a drone court, but new legislation is needed

Shane 13*Scott, NYT Debating a Court to Vet Drone Strikes 2/8/13http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 c.shack]

An administration official who spoke of the White House deliberations on the condition of anonymity said President Obama had

asked his security and legal advisers a year ago to see how you could have an independent review of

planned strikes. That includes possible judicial review.People on the nationalsecurity staff and

the legal side took a hard look at it, and the discussions are still going on, the official said. There are a lot

of complexities. Youd need legislation and probably a new judicial body.The FISA court was created

by Congress in 1978 after revelations of widespread eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security

Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation convinced Congress that the executive branch had

proved incapable of properly policing itself.Eleven judges from around the country sit on the court, but one is on duty at atime, hearing cases in a special high-security courtroom added to Washingtons federal courthouse in 2009. In 2011, according to the most

recent statistics, the court approved 1,745 orders for electronic surveillance or physical searches, rejecting none outright but altering 30.A

drone court would have the same appeal, bringing in an independent arbiter. But it is likely there would beserious limitations to its jurisdiction. Most experts say judges do not have the alacrity or expertise to rule on a frantic call from the C.I.A. every

time a terrorism suspect is in its sights. A better approach would be tohave the court rule on whether the government had

enough evidence against a suspect to place him on the kill list.

And, Drone courts needed NOW to setup FISA-like process capable of checking

executive abuses on targeted killing

Serwer 13[Adam, the American Prospect, written for the Washington Post, the Root, the VillageVoice, and the New York Daily News. Senator: Let's Have a Targeted Killing Court Political Mojo,

Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/senator-lets-have-targeted-killing-court

2/7/13 c.shack]

The United States should set up a secret court that would consider the use of lethal force against

American terror suspects abroad, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said Thursday at the Senate intelligence committee hearing on White

House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's nomination to head the Central Intelligence Agency."Having the executive be the

prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner isvery contrary to laws and traditions of this country," King told

Brennan. King suggested that the court would involve a "FISA-type process," referring to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court,the secret court that considers requests for surveillance against people

who are suspected of working for foreign governments. "At least that would be some check on the

activities of the executive." Thedays, weeks, and months-long process of determining whether someone can

be targeted, King suggested, meant that targeted killing was not like soldiers shooting each other on a

traditional battlefield and should be subjected to some form of judicial accountability. Brennan wasnegative to non-committal, telling King that although the idea was "worthy of discussion," that courts were traditionally used for adjudicating

guilt or innocence, not to prevent the sort of "imminent" threat Brennan claims lethal force is reserved for. A recently leaked Department ofJustice memo on targeted killing, however, defines "imminence" as membership in a terrorist organization, not necessarily involvement in an

unfolding plot that threatens American lives. Nor are courts used solely to adjudicate guiltKing noted that judges also approve warrants.

When asked about the targeted killing process earlier in the hearing, Brennan said that the administration goes through

"agony" before determining whether a strike should take place. But the agony isn't great enough for

Brennan to want someone outside the executive branch to double-check the administration's

decision. Speaking to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) later in the hearing, Brennan said "any American who joins Al Qaeda, will know full well

that they have joined an organization which is at war with the United States." That's true, but saying someone has joined Al

Qaeda isn't the same as proving it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/senator-lets-have-targeted-killing-court%202/7/13%20c.shackhttp://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/senator-lets-have-targeted-killing-court%202/7/13%20c.shackhttp://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/senator-lets-have-targeted-killing-court%202/7/13%20c.shackhttp://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/senator-lets-have-targeted-killing-court%202/7/13%20c.shackhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


2/16


3/16

PLAN:The United States Federal Government should substantially increase judicial restrictions on the targeted

killing war power authority of the President of the United States of America by establishing a court that

would evaluate and authorize the lethal use of drones abroad.


4/16

Advantage 1: Modeling

First, Proliferation of drones inevitable

Kristin Roberts March 21, 2013 ( Kristin Roberts is News Editor for National Journal. In this role, she

leads the team of managing editors and guides NJs coverage of the biggest stories. Before joiningNational Journal in November 2011, Kristin was news editor and deputy bureau chief for Reuter s

Washington bureau.When the Whole World Has Drones

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321, KMH)

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well beyond the control of the United States

government and its closest allies. The aircraft are too easy to obtain, with barriersto entry on theproduction

side crumbling too quicklyto place limits on the spread of a technology that promises to transform

warfare on a global scale.Already, more than 75 countries have remote piloted aircraft.More than 50

nations are building a total of nearly a thousand types . At its last display at a trade show in Beijing, China showed

off 25 different unmanned aerial vehicles. Not toys or models, but real flying machines. Its a classic

and common phase in the life cycle of a military innovation: An advanced countryand its weapons developers

create a tool, andthen others learn how to make their own. But what makes this case rare, and dangerous, is the powerfulcombination of efficiency and lethality spreading in an environment lacking internationally accepted guidelines on legitimate use. This

technology is snowballing through a global arena where the main precedent for its application is the one set by the United States; its a

precedent Washington does not want anyone following.

And, drones are susceptible to terrorist theft

Wan and Finn 2011 (Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities William and Peter,, July 4,2011 The Washington post

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_R

ace_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdf )MT

In recent conflicts, the United States has primarily used land-based drones, but it is developing an aircraft carrier-based version to deploy in the

Pacific. Defense analysts say the new drone is partly intended to counter the long-range carrier killermissile that China is developing. With the ascendance of Chinas military, American allies in the Pacific

increasingly see the United States as the main bulwark against rising Chinese power.And Chinahas

increasingly framed its military developments in response to U.S. capabilities. Navy fighter jet, potentially keeping a

carrier group farther from Chinas coast. This possible use of U.S. drones in the Pacific has been noted with alarm

in news reports in China as well as in North Koreasstate-run media. There are similar anxieties in

the United States over Chinas accelerating drone industry. A report last November by the U.S.-China Economic and

Security Review Commission noted that theChinese military has deployed several types of unmanned aerial

vehicles for both reconnaissance and combat. In the pipeline, the report said , China has several medium- and

high-altitude long-endurance drones, which could expand Chinasoptions for long-range surveillance

and attacks . Chinas rapid development has pushed its neighbors into action. After a diplomatic clashwith China last fall over disputed territories in the South China Sea, Japan announced that it planned to send military officialsto the United States to study how it operates and maintains its Global Hawk high-altitude surveillance drones. In South Korea, lawmakers this

year accused China of hacking into military computers to learn about the countrys plans to acquire Global Hawk, which could peer into not on ly

North Korea but also parts of China and other neighboring countries.On top of the increasing anxieties of individual

countries, there also are international concerns that some governments might not be able to protect

these new weapons from hackers and terrorists . Sharkey, the University of Sheffield professor who

also co-founded the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, noted that Iraqi insurgents,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_Race_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdfhttp://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_Race_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdfhttp://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_Race_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdfhttp://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_Race_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdfhttp://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/drones_517/517V_2_2011_Global_Race_on_to_Match_U.S._Drone_Capabilities_July_4_2012_Washington_Post.pdfhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321


5/16

using a $30 piece of software, intercepted live feeds from U.S. drones; the video was later found on

the laptop of a captured militants.

And, Status quo drone policy will be modeled globally. Left unchecked, our example

will lead to escalating regional conflicts and terrorism

Scott Shane October 8, 2011(is a national security correspondent for The New York Times. ComingSoon: The Drone Arms Racehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&, KMH)

AT the Zhuhai air show in southeastern China last November, Chinese companies startled some Americans by unveiling

25 different models of remotely controlled aircraft and showing video animation of a missile-armed

drone taking out anarmored vehicle and attacking a United States aircraft carrier.The presentation appeared to be moremarketing hype than military threat; the event is Chinas biggest aviation market, drawing both Chinese and foreign military buyers. But it was

stark evidence that the United States near monopoly on armed drones was coming to an end, with far-

reaching consequences for American security, international law and the future of warfare . Eventually, the

United States will face a military adversary or terrorist group armed with drones,military analysts say. Butwhat the short-run hazard experts foresee is not an attack on the United States, which faces no enemies with significant combat drone

capabilities, but the political and legal challenges posed when another country follows the Americanexample. The Bush administration, and even more aggressively the Obama administration, embraced an extraordinary principle: that the

United States can send this robotic weapon over borders to kill perceived enemies, even American

citizens, who are viewed as a threat. Is this the world we want to live in? asks Micah Zenko, a fellow at the

Council on Foreign Relations. Because were creating it.What was a science-fiction scenario not much more than a decade ago hasbecome todays news. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military drones have become a routine part of the arsenal. In Pakistan, according to American

officials, strikes from Predators and Reapers operated by the C.I.A. have killed more than 2,000 militants; the number of civilian casualties is

hotly debated. In Yemen last month, an American citizen was, for the first time, the intended target of a drone strike, as Anwar al-Awlaki, the

Qaeda propagandist and plotter, was killed along with a second American, Samir Khan. If China, for instance, sends killer

drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minorityUighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the

United States say? What if India uses remotely controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or

Russia sends drones after militants in the Caucasus? American officials who protest will likely find

their own example thrown back at them. The problem is that were creating an international norm asserting the right to strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow atthe University of Pittsburgh and author of Missile Contagion, who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. The

copycatting is what I worry about most. The qualities that have made lethal drones so attractive to the Obama administration for

counterterrorism appeal to many countries and, conceivably, to terrorist groups: a capacity for leisurely surveillance and precise strikes, modest

cost, and most important, no danger to the operator, who may sit in safety thousands of miles from the target. To date, only the United States,

Israel (against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and Britain (in Afghanistan) are known to have used drones for strikes. But American

defense analysts count more than 50 countries that have built or bought unmanned aerial vehicles, or U.A.V.s, and the number is rising every

month. Most are designed for surveillance, but as the United States has found, adding missiles or bombs is hardly a technical

challenge. The virtue of most U.A.V.s is that they have long wings and you can strap anything to them, Mr. Gormley says. That inclu des

video cameras, eavesdropping equipment and munitions, he says. Its spreading like wildfire. So far, the United States hasa hugelead in the number and sophistication of unmanned aerial vehicles (about 7,000, by one officials estimate, mostly unarmed). The Air Force

prefers to call them not U.A.V.s but R.P.A.s, or remotely piloted aircraft, in acknowledgment of the human role; Air Force officials should

know, since their service is now training more pilots to operate drones than fighters and bombers. Philip Finnegan, director of corporate

analysis for the Teal Group, a company that tracks defense and aerospace markets, says global spending on research and procurement of

drones over the next decade is expected to total more than $94 billion, including $9 billion on remotely piloted combat aircraft. Israel andChina are aggressively developing and marketing drones, and Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and several

other countries are not far behind. The Defense Security Service, which protects the Pentagon and its contractors from espionage,warned in a report last year that American drone technology had become a prime target for foreign spies. Last December, a surveillance drone

crashed in an El Paso neighborhood; it had been launched, it turned out, by the Mexican police across the border. Even Hezbollah,the

Lebanese militant group, has deployed drones, an Iranian design capable of carrying munitions and diving

into a target, says P. W. Singer of the Brookings Institution, whose 2009 book Wired for War is a primer on robotic combat. Late last

month, a 26-year-old man from a Boston suburb was arrested and charged with plotting to load a
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


6/16

remotely controlled aircraft with plastic explosives and crash it into the Pentagon or United States

Capitol.His supposed co-conspirators were actually undercover F.B.I. agents, and it was unclear that his scheme could have done muchdamage. But it was an unnerving harbinger, says John Villasenor, professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles.

He notes that the Army had just announced a $5 million contract for a backpack-size drone called a Switchblade that can carry an explosive

payload into a target; such a weapon will not long be beyond the capabilities of a terrorist network. If they are skimming over rooftops and

trees, they will be almost impossible to shoot down, he maintains. It is easy to scare ourselves by imagining terrorist

drones rigged not just to carry bombs but to spew anthrax or scatter radioactive waste . Speculation that AlQaeda might use exotic weapons has so far turned out to be just that. But the technological curve for drones means the

threat can no longer be discounted.I think of where the airplane was at the start of World War I: at first it was unarmed and

limited to a handful of countries, Mr. Singer says. Then it was armed and everywhere. That is the path were on.

And, Bioterrorism leads to extinction

Kellman 08 (Barry, Professor of Law, Director, International Weapons Control Center, International Human Rights Law Institute @DePaul U., Futurist, May 2008, Bioviolence: A Growing Threat,

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/31535413/Bioviolence-A-Growing-Threat)According to the National Academies of Science, "The threat spectrum is broad and evolving in some ways predictably, in other ways

unexpectedly. In the future, genetic engineering and other technologies may lead to the development of pathogenic organisms with

unique, unpredictable characteristics." For as far into the future as we can possibly see, every passing day it becomes slightly easier to

commit a vio lent catastrophe than it was the day before. Indeed, the rapid pace of advancing science helps explain why policies to

prevent such a catastrophe are so complicated. Bioviolence Jihad? Some experts argue that terrorists and fanatics are not interested in

bioviolence and that the danger might therefore be overblown. Since there have been no catastrophic

bioviolence attacks, these experts argue, terrorists lack the intention to make bioweapons.

Hopefully, they are correct. But an enormous amount of evidence suggests they are wrong. From the dawn of biology's

ability to isolate pathogens, people have pursued hostile applications of biological agents. It

is perilous to ignore this extensive history by presuming that today's villains are not fervent

about weaponizing disease.Not a single state admits to having a bioweapons program, but U.S. intelligence officials assertthat as many as 10 states might have active programs, including North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, many terrorist organizations

have expressed interest in acquiring biological weapons. Whatever weight the taboo against inflicting disease might have for nation-

states, it is obviously irrelevant to terrorists, criminals, and lunatics. Deterrence by threat of retaliation is

essentially meaningless for groups with suicidal inclinationswho are likely to intermingle with innocentcivilians. Al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamic fundamentalist organizations have abling them to spread in regions where there is no natural

immunity. The polio virus has been synthesized from scratch; its creators called it an "animate chemical." Soon, it may be resynthesized

into a form that is contagious even among vaccinated populations. Recreation of long-eradicated livestock diseases could ravage herds

severely lacking in genetic diversity, damage food supplies, and cause devastating economic losses. Perhaps the greatest biothreat is themanipulation of the flu and other highly contagious viruses, such as Ebola. Today, scientists can change parts of a virus's genetic material

so that it can perform specific functions. The genomic sequence of the Spanish flu virus that killed upwards of 40 million people nearly a

century ago has been widely published; any savvy scientist could reconstruct it. The avian flu is even more lethal, albeit no t readily

contagious via casual aerosol delivery. A malevolent bio- scientist might augment its contagiousness. The Ebola virus might be

manipulated so that it kills more slowly, allowing it to be spread farther before its debilitating effects altogether consume its carrier. A

bit further off is genetic manipulation of the measles virus--one of the great killers in human history--rendering useless the

immunizations that most of us receive in early childhood. Soon, laboratory resynthesis of smallpox may be possible.Advanced

drug delivery systems can be used to disseminate lethal agents to broad populations.Bio-regulators--small organic compounds that modify body systems-- could enhance targeted delivery technologies. Some experts are

concerned that new weapons could be aimed at the immune, neurological, and neuroendocrine systems. Nanotechnology that lends itselfto mechanisms for advanced disease detection and drug delivery--such as gold nanotubes that can administer drugs directly into a

tumor--could also de- liver weaponized agents deep into the body, substantially raising the weapon's effectiveness. Altogether,

techniques that were on the frontiers of science only a decade or two ago are rapidly

mutating A looming danger confronts the world--the threat of bioviolence.It is a danger that will onlygrow in the future, yet we are increasingly failing to confront it. With every passing day, committing a biocatastrophe becomes a biteasier, and this condition will perpetuate for as long as science progresses. Biological warfare is as old as conflict, of course, but in terms

of the objectives of traditional warfare-- gaining territory or resources, compelling the surrender of an opposing army--biological

weapons weren't very effective. If the objective is to inflict mass death and panic on a mixed

population, however, emerg- ing bioweapons offer remarkable potential.We would be irresponsibleto presume that radical jihadists like al- Qaeda have ignored said potential.


7/16

And, failure to reverse the dangerous precedent set by Obamas drone policy makes

conflict inevitable

Carol J. Williams February 07, 2013 (Senior International Affairs Writer at Los Angeles Times andMore than 30 years experience covering foreign affairs, civil liberties and legal issues for major American

media, including 18 years as a foreign correspondent with the Los Angeles Times and 10 prior to that

with Associated Press U.S. drone use could set dangerous example for rogue powershttp://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/07/world/la-fg-wn-us-drones-global-precedent-20130206/2, KMH)

Imagine if North Korea or Iran or Venezuela deployed thousands of unmanned surveillance aircraftin

search of earthbound enemies, a swarm of robotic hunters armed with lethal weaponry and their

governments go-ahead to exterminate targets. Its a frightening scenario but far from an

unimaginable one,given that dozens of nationsnowbuild, program and deploy their own drones. Newlydisclosed U.S. guidelines on drone warfare appear to authorize a more permissive practice of targeted killings in the global fight against

terrorism than previously articulated. And the Obama administrations embrace of a right to strike those it has identified

as threats to U.S. security has prompted warnings fromrights advocates and international security experts that the

White House is setting a dangerous precedent that rogue nations could follow. The U.S. military and intelligencecommunities have increasingly turned to drones for precision strikes against terrorism suspects in Pakistan and Yemen, executing more than

300 remote-controlled attacks during President Obamas first term. That is a sixfold increase from the Bush administrations use of drones,according to the British nonprofit Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Muting any serious debate on the morality and legality of targeted killings

is the U.S. publics positive response to the arm's-length attacks that eliminate terrorism suspects without putting troops at risk in a more

conventional offensive. More than 80% of Americans expressed support for the administrations drone policy in a Washington Post -ABC News

poll a year ago. A Pew Research Center survey in June showed similarly high regard among Americans questioned but majority disapproval

among respondents in 19 other countries surveyed. Escalating U.S. drone use in counter-terrorism is both hurting the countrys image and

raising the stakes in what promises to be a protracted war to defeat the global network of militants bent on doing America harm, security and

legal experts argue. Technological capabilities are developing far faster than the laws and international

frameworks to regulate their use, said Amy Zegart, a senior fellow at Stanfords Hoover Institution and former National SecurityCouncil staffer under President Clinton. Drone use was a rare and almost exclusively U.S. military capability a decade ago, Zegart said, yet

today at least 70 countries have unmanned aerial vehicles,or UAVs, as drones are called in security parlance. Althoughmost of that use is aimed at reducing the costs and risks of intelligence-gathering and search-and-rescue missions, the increasingly affordable

and versatile aircraft can be programmed for combat as easily as for peaceful civilian uses. Despite a credible threat of spreading

drone warfare, there is little interest among the nations employing the devices to yield to any agreed

rules of engagement, Zegart said.

And, Refusing to constrain the executive on drones NOW results in nuclear war later

Roberts 2013By Kristin Staff writer March 21, When the Whole World Has Drones http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321 MT

Its a classic and common phase in the life cycle of a military innovation: An advanced country and its weapons developers

create a tool, and then others learn how to make their own. But what makes this case rare, and

dangerous, is the powerful combination of efficiency and lethality spreading in an environment

lacking internationally accepted guidelines on legitimate use. This technology is snowballing through a

global arena where the main precedent for its application is the one set by the United States; its a p recedent Washington does

not want anyone following. America, the worlds leading democracy and a country built on a legal and moral framework unlikeany other, has adopted a war-making process that too often bypasses its traditional, regimented, and rigorously overseen military in favor of a

secret program never publicly discussed, based on legal advice never properly vetted. The Obama administration has

used its executive power to refuse or outright ignore requests by congressional

overseers, and it has resisted monitoring by federal courts. To implement this covert program, theadministration has adopted a tool that lowers the threshold for lethal force by reducing the cost and risk of combat. This still-expanding

counterterrorism use of drones to kill people, including its own citizens, outside of traditionally
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/07/world/la-fg-wn-us-drones-global-precedent-20130206/2http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/07/world/la-fg-wn-us-drones-global-precedent-20130206/2


8/16

defined battlefields and established protocols for warfare,has given friends and foes a green light to employ theseaircraft in extraterritorial operations that could not only affect relations between the nation-states involved but also destabilize entire regions

and potentially upset geopolitical order. I dont think there is enough transparency and justification so that we remove not the secrecy, but the

mystery of these things.Dennis Blair, former director of national intelligence Hyperbole? Consider this: Iran, with the approval of Damascus,

carries out a lethal strike on anti-Syrian forces inside Syria; Russia picks off militants tampering with oil and gas

lines in Ukraine or Georgia; Turkey arms a U.S.-provided Predator to kill Kurdish militants in northern

Iraq who it believes are planning attacks along the border. Label the targets as terrorists, and in eachcase, Tehran, Moscow, and Ankara may point toward Washington and say, we learned it by watching

you. In Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

And, Without a court, entire regions are destabilized and relations suffer

Kristin Roberts March 21, 2013 (Kristin Roberts is News Editor for National Journal. In this role, sheleads the team of managing editors and guides NJs coverage of the biggest stories. Before joining

National Journal in November 2011, Kristin was news editor and deputy bureau chief for Reuters

Washington bureau.When the Whole World Has Drones

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321, KMH)

America, the worlds leading democracy and a country built on a legal and moral framework unlike any other, has adopted a war-making

process that too often bypasses itstraditional, regimented, and rigorously overseen military in favor of a secret program

never publicly discussed, based on legal advice never properly vetted. The Obama administration has used its executive power to refuse or outright

ignore requests by congressional overseers, and it has resisted monitoring by federal courts.To implement this covert program, the

administration has adopted a tool that lowers the threshold for lethal force by reducing the cost and

risk of combat. This still-expandingcounterterrorism use of drones to kill people, including its own citizens, outside of

traditionally defined battlefields and established protocols for warfare, has given friends and foes a green light to employ these

aircraft inextraterritorial operations that couldnot only affect relations between the nation-states involved but

also destabilize entire regions and potentially upset geopoliticalorder.Hyperbole? Consider this:Iran, with the

approval of Damascus, carries out a lethal strike on anti-Syrian forces inside Syria; Russiapicks off militants

tampering with oil and gas lines in Ukraine or Georgia; Turkey arms a U.S.-provided Predator to killKurdish militants in northern Iraqwho it believes are planning attacks along the border. Label the targets as terrorists, and in each case,

Tehran, Moscow, and Ankara may point toward Washington and say, we learned it by watching you. In

Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan.This is the unintended consequence of American drone warfare. For all of the attentionpaid to the drone program in recent weeksabout Americans on the target list (there are none at this writing) and the executive branchs legal authority to kill by

drone outside war zones (thin, by officials own private admission) what goes undiscussed is Washingtons deliberate failure to establish

clear and demonstrable rules for itself that would at minimum create a globally relevant standard for

delineating between legitimate and rogue uses of one of the most awesome military roboticscapabilities of this generation.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321


9/16

Advantage 2 Pakistan Relations/Stability

First, Drone strikes are increasing in Pakistannow is the time to actNew York Times 7/13/13

(2 Killed by U.S. Drone Strike in Pakistan IHSANULLAH TIPU MEHSUD Published: July 13, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/asia/2-killed-by-us-drone-strike-in-pakistan.html?_r=0)MTPakistan ISLAMABAD At least two people were killed Saturday in an American drone strikein a northwesterntribal region of Pakistan, according to intelligence officials. The two victims, whom the authorities believed to be militants, were riding a

motorcycle when they were targeted by the drone strike. Their identities were not immediately known. Both of the militants o n the motorbike

were killed on the spot, a Pakistani intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The drone fired two missiles that als o

damaged a nearby house, but no casualty has so far been reported inside it. The strike was the second one in July. The

previous strike occurred July 2, killing at least 17 people,also in North Waziristan. Drone strikes, which are

operated by the C.I.A, are immensely unpopular in Pakistan and are portrayed as a violation of its

sovereignty. Islamist and right-wing, nationalist political parties have long demanded that America stop its drone

campaign in the tribal regions, claiming that they have caused a large number of civilian casualties.

And, Now is the key time for a Drone CourtPakistan is looking to US to change their

policy on drones

IQBAL 7/18/2013ANWAR IQBAL2013-07-18staff writerUS needs a new drone deal with Pakistan: report http://dawn.com/news/1029840/us-needs-a-new-

drone-deal-with-pakistan-report MT

The report by Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, says that the new deal will have to be

sensitive to Pakistans concerns and objectives.This will likely mean that Washington will face new

constraints in its counter-terrorism operations. But managed with care, a new agreement could put

the targeted killing campaign against Al Qaeda on firmer political footing without entirely eliminating

its effectiveness, he argues. The report claims that before launching the first drone strike in June 2004, the United States soughtpersonal authorisation from then president and army chief Pervez Musharraf. For several years thereafter, the Pakistani army claimed

responsibility for all drone strikes, publicly denying American intervention. The PPP government and the army under Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani

continued to green light the drone programme. But this arrangement is unlikely to survive much longer in its

current form because the new government will not want to continue it, says the author. In September, Pakistan

will have a new president and a new army chief and if Washington continues the strikes without a new deal, one

can imagine Sharifs new army chief threatening to shoot US drones from the sky. And at that stage,

Washington would likely pull the drones from normal operation rather than play a high-stakes game

of chicken.

And, status quo drone policy undermines US-Pakistan relations, which are key to solve

Middle East conflict

Aftab Hussain2013-7-14 (Political Media Advisor and consultant, writer for the Global Times, Dronestrikes ineffective and only serve to help anti-Americanism

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/796049.shtml#.UfXCto3qmSr, KMH)

In April this year, some people protested outside the White House, demanding an end to drone strikes. There havealso been many

protests in Europe and Australia. The chances of a drone strike killing a real terrorist are one out of

100, while most usually kill only civilians and destroy their property. This has increased anti-Americanism among the

people of Pakistan. The Sharif government demanded an immediate stop to drone strikes inside Pakistani territory. The newadministration in Islamabad is stronger than its predecessor and is supported by the people. It is also clearer about people's opinions on

Pakistan's relations with the US. There is a chance that the new leaders will take a stand against drone strikes.If
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/asia/2-killed-by-us-drone-strike-in-pakistan.html?_r=0http://dawn.com/news/1029840/us-needs-a-new-drone-deal-with-pakistan-reporthttp://dawn.com/news/1029840/us-needs-a-new-drone-deal-with-pakistan-reporthttp://www.globaltimes.cn/content/796049.shtml#.UfXCto3qmSrhttp://www.globaltimes.cn/content/796049.shtml#.UfXCto3qmSrhttp://dawn.com/news/1029840/us-needs-a-new-drone-deal-with-pakistan-reporthttp://dawn.com/news/1029840/us-needs-a-new-drone-deal-with-pakistan-reporthttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/asia/2-killed-by-us-drone-strike-in-pakistan.html?_r=0


10/16

the US does not stop such attacks in the future, the already fragile relations may deteriorate further. The damage toproperty and loss of life are the immediate results of drone strikes, but anti-Americanism and militancy are the longer-term effects. People who

suffer from UAV attacks are more likely to join the ranks of militants. Sharif is courageous enough to stand against the US

and history proves it. In 1998, when India tested nuclear weapons, implying a threat from New Delhi

to annihilate Pakistan, Sharif reciprocated with nuclear tests despite immense pressure from the US. If

public pressure grows and UAV attacks continue inside Pakistan, Sharif will likely ask the military to shoot down

the drones.Drone strikes started in Pakistan in 2005, and have so far killed more than 2,500 people, most of whom were innocent civilians.If drone attacks were effective and some terrorists were killed, one could, for the sake of argument, say that since it aids Pakistani forces' hunt

for terrorists, they should continue. However, such a method has proven to be highly dangerous and counterproductive. If the US still believes

that it is helpful, then it should share the technology with Pakistan, and the country should start making and using the drones too. It is the

leaders in Islamabad who should decide when and where to fire a drone missile, not people in Washington who are used to giving the orders.

Violating the sovereignty of a country is counterproductive. If Washington wants good relations with Islamabad, it

should respect the country's territorial sovereignty. Through cooperation, and with mutual confidence

and trust, relations can improve. The US needs to realize Pakistan's significance to Washington in

South Asia. Pakistan can help with bringing about peace in Afghanistan, and can also help with the

promotion of regional trade and economy.

And, Middle Eastern Instability goes Nuclear and causes extinctionMorgan, Political Writer, 07(Stephen J., Political Writer and Former Member of the British Labour Party Executive Committee,

Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?, 9-23,

http://www.freearticlesarchive.com/article/_Better_another_Taliban_Afghanistan__than_a_Taliban_N

UCLEAR_Pakistan___/99961/0/)

However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has noguarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover,

should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate

could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, the likely break up of Afghanistan

along ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces have

always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world s ituation, the country could be faced withcivil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalistcoupdtat.Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children

born that year was Osama (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakenin g base of the traditional, secular

opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup dtat by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses

to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be

likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist

movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now

Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon,

Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to

the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly,this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim

community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A

new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan

break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open

a Pandora's box for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist

elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel

becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al

Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility.

This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia

pitted against the US.


11/16

And, Relations are necessary for US to mediate conflict between Pakistan and India

lodhi 2009 (Maleeha The Future of pakistan-U.S. Relations: opportunities and challenges April 2009http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497485)MT

While the threat from terrorism and militancy is a clear and immediate danger to Pakistan, Islamabad cannot ignore the more

enduring strategic threat that emanates from the adversarial relationship between itself and Delhi .

There are three reasons for this threat perception: a history of conflict (three wars and four near-wars), unresolved disputes including that over Kashmir, and Indias military posture, with the vast

bulk of its land, air, and sea forces deployed against Pakistan. These assets can be quickly mobilized,

as they were in 2002, for military action or for exercises in coercive diplomacy. Historically, tensions

between the nuclear neighbors have been shaped by military threat perceptions and postures. Theheightened tensions in the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai last year was a reminder that, in order to address violence on a durable

basis, a solution must be found to underlying disputes. How easily relations can revert to confrontation was dramatized by the immediate

suspension of what seemed a promising, 5-year-old peace process. Pakistan recognizes that peace with India is essential

to achieve its goal of economic stabilityand to address the security threat posed by violent extremism. For the United

States as well, peace in South Asia is essential to a number of its strategic objectives, including

defusing the most proximate nuclear flashpoint.1111President Obama often spoke prior to his election of the need toaddress Pakistan-India relations, asserting that the road to a stabilized Afghanistan runs through a Kashmir solution. But he later dropped

any suggestion of an initiative on Kashmir in the face of Indian opposition. His new regional strategy excludes theIndiaPakistan equation.The portfolio of his special representative Richard Holbrooke omits this although his original mandate wasto encompass South Asia. This does not mean that the interconnectedness of regional security issues will disappear. Policies have to respond

to realities and not the other way around. The success of Obamas strategy will be contingent on how calm

relations arebetween Delhi and Islamabad. Unless Pakistans security concerns on its eastern frontier are addressed, it will not be able

to act decisively in fighting militancy on the western border. This should urge the United States to consider diplomatic

engagement to help promote strategic stability in South Asia . Such a regime needs to be built in three dimensions:

finding an acceptable Kashmir solution and institutionalizing both nuclear and conventional military restraints. The India-U.S.

nuclear deal represented a lost opportunity in not promoting such a regime when Washington had the

leverage. Instead, the deal aroused grave misgivings in Islamabad, which saw this as another example of iniquitous policies followed by

Washington. This does not, however, prevent the United States from future efforts to promote strategic stability, using the

window of opportunity available prior to the execution of the nuclear agreement.1111111111111111

And, Indo-Pak war leads to nuclear extinction

Madrigal 2008Alexis Madrigal, Energy Science Tech and Journalist, Regional Nuclear War Would Cause Worldwide Destruction,Wired, 4/7/08, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/regional-nuclea/ MT

Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which

each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other countrys megacities. Karachi, Bombay, and

dozens of other South Asian cities catch fire like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did at the end of World War II.

Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric

chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tearholes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss

could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and

Eurasia. "Our research supports that there would be worldwide destruction," said Michael Mills, co-

author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It demonstrates that a small-scale

regional conflict is capable of triggering larger ozone losses globally than the ones that were

previously predicted for a full-scale nuclear war." Combined with the climatic impact of a

regional nuclear war which could reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497485http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497485http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/regional-nuclea/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/regional-nuclea/http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497485http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497485


12/16

Mills modeling shows that the entire globe would feel the repercussions of a hundred

nuclear detonations, a small fraction of just the U.S. stockpile. After decades of Cold War research into the

impacts that a full-blown war between the Soviet Union and the United States would have had on the globe, recent work has

focused on regional nuclear wars, which are seen as more likely than all-out nuclear

Armageddon. Incorporating the latest atmospheric modeling, the scientists are finding that

even a small nuclear conflict would wreak havoc on the global environment(.pdf) cooling ittwice as much as its heated over the last century and on the structure of the atmosphere

itself.


13/16

Solvency

FISA-type court best option; Congress and Executive cant solve

McNeal and Martin 13[Gregory (professor at Pepperdine Universitys School of Law) and Rachel(NPR host), How A 'Drone Court' Might Work 3/31/13 National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175829140/how-a-drone-court-might-work c.shack]

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Rachel Martin. The drone attacks carried out under the Obama

administration have for years been one of the biggest open secrets in Washington. It was only last year that the president's then-

counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, acknowledge the program publicly for the first time. In recent months, there have been calls

from both Democrats and Republicans to make the program more transparent. One suggestion floating around

Capitol Hill is the idea of something called a drone court, which would examine the legality of a drone attack. GregoryMcNeal has been writing about accountability and oversight of the drone program for Lawfare. It's a blog covering national security law. He also

teaches that same subject at Pepperdine University's School of Law. We asked him to explain the different ways a court like this

could work.GREGORY MCNEAL: A drone strike happens against an individual. It turns out, based on journalist

reports, whatever, that it was wrong or a family member says , you know, this person was not involved in

terrorism at all. You've taken his life, you've destroyed our property - that could be part of the suitas

well - you owe us some compensation for what you've done. This one is the least controversialin my mind because it's thetype of thing that courts are able to do; review facts after the fact and it's not second-guessing the

judgment of the commander in chief, at least it's not second-guessing it before a strike happens.MARTIN: So, let's walk through

another optionthat you outline. It would be a court modeled afterwhat are called FISA courts. These are the courts

formed out of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, essentially a secret group of judges who can hear very highly

classified cases and decide, for example, whether or not the government can open a wiretap or

otherwise monitor a person of interest.MCNEAL: This category of before-the-fact review, I think, is much more

difficult. First, it's problematic because a court doesn't have competence in this, which is sometimes OK becausea court can call forth

experts. But what experts exist in commander in chief targeting? People in the military and people in the intelligence community. And soyou'd have a court that I think oftentimes would defer to the experts that the executive branch brought forth. And soon you'll have a situation

where if a strike goes bad, the commander in chief could say, well, hey, the court signed off on it. It's not my fault. And if a strike doesn't occur,

the court denied the strike against that person and then they end up doing the second Christmas Day bombing plot but they actually succeed,

the president can wipe his hands of it and say, hey, look, not my fault, we tried and the court said no.MARTIN: I do want to ask you a question

from the other side of this. You talked with U.S. government officials and they would say that transparency is not and should not be the goal,

that transparency undermines national security interests, that transparency would not be a good thing.MCNEAL: You can't have 100

percent transparency in matters of national security. I think that's correct.But you could have a lot more

transparency than we currently have. For example, if the president were to go out and explain in detail

the criteria and the manner in which the U.S. carries out these strikes and how careful the U.S. is, and

if Congress were to say we're monitoring to make sure they're actually as careful as they say, and if

they were transparent about what their redlines were by communicating that to the people, it also

sends a credible signal to the president that,listen, if you violate these redlines, we're going to hold you

accountable and you could really trust we will because we've gone public with what our criteria are

when we conduct our oversight activities.MARTIN: So, why doesn't this happen? Is there not an incentive formembers of Congress to lay out those redlines and make the deliberation process more transparent?MCNEAL: So, this is a fascinating

question. If you think about it in the most crass political terms, there's not really a constituency for the civilian who was

killed in a drone strikewhere the president alleges that that civilian was accompanying a member of al-Qaida, right? You're not going

to go out to Peoria and say and I approve this message; I protected the guy in the front seat with the al-Qaida member. I think the second

issue is that by not going on record, you can hold the executive accountable in private but it doesn't

force you to consistently do it when it's not politically convenient for you.MARTIN: So, if you've just outlined

that the executive branch doesn't really have an incentive in making this more transparent because it

means relinquishing control, Congress doesn't really have an incentive because it's politically

untenable, what is likely to happen? What is realistic?MCNEAL: So, interestingly, the Rand Paul f ilibuster of John Brennan to leave the CIA,which was largely animated by transparency over the drone program and targeted killings, I think that that was sort of a - there's some polling
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175829140/how-a-drone-court-might-work%20c.shackhttp://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175829140/how-a-drone-court-might-work%20c.shack


14/16

that indicates that was a triggering moment that changed public attitudes about this. There's been a lot more pressure for congressional

oversight, which is one way that we have - or congressional hearings - which is one way that we have better transparency and more pressure

on the executive branch. And I think as long as that political pressure stays on Congress to say what are you doing here, we might get a bit more

transparency.MARTIN: Gregory McNeal is a law professor at Pepperdine University's School of Law. Gregory, thanks so much for talking with

us.MCNEAL: Thanks for having me.

And, Drone reform needed now to strengthen foreign relations

MicahZenko January 13, (Douglas Dillon Fellow and Writer for the Council on Foreign AffairsYet, as Micah Zenko writes in this Council Special Report, Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies

http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736, KMH)

Over the last ten years, drones are not without their drawbacks,especially with regard to targeted killings. Like any tool,

drones areonly as useful as the information guiding them, and for this they are heavily reliant on local military and

intelligence cooperation. More important, significant questions exist about who constitutes a

legitimate target and under what circumstances it is acceptable to strike.There is also the question of net utility:

To what extent are the specific benefits derived from drone strikes offset by the reality that the strikes often alienate the

local government and population? And there is the reality that drones are proliferating but, as is often the case with new

technologies, the international legal and regulatory framework is lagging behind. Zenko puts forward a substantive agenda. He argues that the

United States shouldend so-called signature strikes, which target unidentified militants based on their behavior patterns and personalnetworks, and limit targeted killings to a limited number of specific terrorists with transnational ambitions. He also calls Congress to

improve its oversight of drone strikes and to continue restrictions on armed drone sales. Finally, he

recommends that the United States work internationally to establish rules and norms governing the use of

drones.Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies raises an important and underexamined set of issues. It analyzes the potentially

serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone programand makesrecommendations for improving its governance. The result is a provocative report that is well worth reading and contemplating.

And, A Drone court resolves the current issues in the current drone program

Jaffer 2013 ( Jameel Jaffer April 13 2013 Judicial Review of Targeted Killings , Director of the ACLU'sCenter for Democracyhttp://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/april13/forum_1002.php) MT

Since 9/11, the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) have used armed drones to kill thousands of people in

places far removed from conventional battlefields. Legislators, legal scholars, and human rights

advocates have raised concerns about civilian casualties, the legal basis for the strikes, the process by

which the executive selects its targets, and the actual or contemplated deployment of armed drones

into additional countries. Some have proposed that Congress establish a court to approve (or

disapprove) strikes before the government carries them out.While judicial engagement with the targeted killingprogram is long overdue, those aiming to bring the program in line with our legal traditions and moral intuitions should think carefully before

embracing this proposal. Creating a new court to issue death warrants is more likely to normalize the

targeted killing program than to restrain it.The argument for some form of judicial review is

compelling, not least because such review would clarify the scope of the governments authority to

use lethal force. The targeted killing program is predicated on sweeping constructions of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force(AUMF) and the Presidents authority to use military force in national self-defense. The government contends, for example, that the AUMF

authorizes it to use lethal force against groups that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that did not even exist when those attacks

were carried out. It contends that the AUMF gives it authority to use lethal force against individuals located far from conventional battlefields.

As the Justice Departments recently leaked white paper makes clear, the government also contends that the President

has authority to use lethal force against those deemed to present continuing rather than truly

imminent threats.These claims are controversial. They have been rejected or questioned by human rights groups, legal scholars,federal judges, and U.N. special rapporteurs. Even enthusiasts of the drone program have become anxious about its legal soundness. (People

in Washington need to wake up and realize the legal foundations are crumbling by the day, Professor Bobby Chesney, a supporter of the

program, recently said.) Judicial review could clarify the limits on the governments legal authority and
http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/april13/forum_1002.phphttp://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/april13/forum_1002.phphttp://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736


15/16

supply a degree of legitimacy to actions taken within those limits.It could also encourage executive

officials to observe these limits. Executive officials would be less likely to exceed or abuse their

authority if they were required to defend their conduct to federal judges. Even Jeh Johnson, the Defense

Departments former general counsel and a vocal defender of the targeted killing program, acknowledged in a recent speech tha tjudicial

review could add rigor to the executives decisionmaking process. In explaining the function of the Foreign

Intelligence SurveillanceCourt, which oversees government surveillance in certain national security investigations, executive officials haveoften said that even the mere prospect of judicial review deters error and abuse.

And, Plan solvesa court is the best way to authorize drone strikes

Mulrine 13*Anna, Staff Writer DC Decoder CSM, Would a US 'drone court' to authorize dronestrikes be a good idea?http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-

drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video c.shack]

Among the striking moments in President Obamas national security speech this week, in which he argued it's time to wean America off its

nation-at-war mentality, was his apparent receptiveness to the idea of establishing a drone court"as a check on the use of those weapons.

Called kill courts by critics, the proceedings in these proposed courtrooms would determine whom US forces can legally kill via drone strikes.

They presumably would operate much the way that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts do now. Since 1978, these courts have

been convened secretly to approve government wiretapping operations on US soil.Until recently, drone strikes rose steadily under Mr.Obama. In 2010, there were 122 of them in Pakistan, killing some 849 people, according to a report by the New America Foundation, a

Washington, D.C., think tank. In 2012, such strikes in Pakistan dropped to 50, killing about 306 people. Civilian casualties as a result of drone

attacks have also been reduced, according to the foundation. That is partly the result of a sharply reduced number of drone strikes in Pakistan

12 so far in 2013, compared with a record 122 in 2010and also more precise targeting, according to its report.The casualty rate for

civilians and unknowns in other words, people who are not identified definitively as either militants or civilianswas roughly 40 percent

under President George W. Bush. It is now 16 percent, according to the foundation.The proliferation of drone strikes in

recent years prompts a much greater need for oversight, say critics of the drone program, echoing warnings against

what Obama characterized on Thursday as a boundless war on terror. Perpetual war through drones or special forces

or troops deploymentswill prove self-defeating and alter our country in troubling ways, Obama

said.He nonetheless defended drone strikes as pivotal to eliminating Al Qaeda leaders. Looking into the

future, Obama opened the door to the possibility of a drones court to increase oversight of the

weapons' use.The establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the

benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, he said in his speech. But he also sounded a

cautionary note, saying such a court would raise "constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. The courts could

help increase accountability, as will having more drone strikes under the auspices of the US military,

rather than under the Central Intelligence Agencya change the White House has indicated it will

make. "It puts drone targeting within a well-established process, with rules of engagement, legal

review, oversight, and a post-strike review process," says Mark Jacobson, senior transatlantic fellow

at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.Critics of the drone program, however, are generally not reassured bythe notion of oversight from a special drone court. They note that the FISA courts, on which the drone courts would be modeled, operate

largely in secret, doing little to improve accountability to the public. Whats more, they say, national and international laws are already in

place governing when drone strikes are legal. Those laws, they add, offer greater transparency than would a secret court. Im not big on

this, Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, says of the drone courts. The fact is, we have international

laws. We have domestic laws. I would focus on those and say, Look, heres the due diligence you need to do in targeting a combatant. Heres

what you need to do in order to avoid civilians. Heres what proportionality looks like. Zeke Johnson, director of Amnesty Internationals

Security and Human Rights Campaign, argues that drone courts would do little to change critics' fundamental concerns about drone strikes.Whats needed on drones is not a kill court, but a rejection of the radical redefinition of imminence used to expand who can be killedas

well as independent investigations of alleged extrajudicial executions and remedy for victims, he says. Congress will carefully

consider any drone-court proposal, Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon told National Public Radioon Thursday.Senator Wyden has demanded access to secret documents about the lethal drone attacks on Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric living in

Yemen who was killed in 2011. For his part, Wyden expressed reservations about this idea of just setting up more special courts. I mean,

its not as if weve struck the right balance with respect to the FISA court at this point in terms of protecting the American people. Ive been

trying to get a number of these opinions declassified for years now, he added, and I havent been able to do it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video%20c.shackhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video%20c.shackhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video%20c.shackhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video%20c.shackhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0524/Would-a-US-drone-court-to-authorize-drone-strikes-be-a-good-idea-video%20c.shack


16/16

And, Drones court will work; provides oversight, judicial review, effectiveness, and has

an existing framework

Jane Harman February 19th, 2013(is director, president and chief executive officer of the WoodrowWilson International Center for Scholars. She was a nine-term congresswoman from California, the

ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee from 2002 to 2006, Harman: Drone courts can

workhttp://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/harman-drone-courts-can-work/, KMH)

These amendments - which then-Sen. Barack Obama supported, and which were passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote and renewed

twicecreated the legal structure that could serve as a model for overseeing drone strikes and offensive cyberattacks. A FISA-like process for

governing so-called "remote-control warfare" would protect individual liberties enshrined in the

Constitution while confronting asupercharged threat environment. FISA-like procedures can help with critical

determinations of how imminent a threat is, whether capture is feasible and if potential action is

consistent with laws of war,the three criteria laid out in the recently leaked Department of Justice's "white paper" on drone strikes.

Robert Gates: Drone program could use more oversight The FISA court, renamed the CT Court, could also oversee

drones and cyber. A FISA court application must show that specific individuals are connected to a foreign

powerwhich is defined, in part, as a group engaged in international terrorism. Drone and cyber applications could (1) list

the individual/cyber target against whom the lethal operation is directed and (2) submit a finding of

probable cause that the individual/cyber target is connected to a foreign power, is in a senior operationalcapacity and poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States . Approved applications fordrone strikes and cyberattacks would need to be renewed after a certain period, and discontinued if evidence is presented that the targets no

longer meet the criteria. FISA provisions for emergency authorization in time-sensitive situations should also

apply. The concern about avoiding collateral damage in drone strikes is echoed in the FISA requirement to

minimize exposure of U.S. persons and private information that may be incidentally acquired in the course of a foreign intelligence operation.

FISA also explicitly provides for congressional oversight by mandating that the intelligence and

judiciary committees be kept fully informed. As an independent branch of government, Congress must conduct robust

oversight. In addition to adopting a FISA-like framework, one more major change should be made: All sustained drone and

cyberattacks should be conducted by Department of Defense agencies. The CIA could then return to its more

traditional missions, something CIA director nominee John Brennan has said he supports. Vice President Biden likes to say that

"our own strength lies not in the example of our power, but the power of our example." Showing the

world that we run "remote-control warfare" consistent with our values will vastly improve ourstanding in the worldand our ability to win the argument with those who are considering whether to attack the United States. Wecan have liberty and security, or we can diminish both.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/harman-drone-courts-can-work/http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/harman-drone-courts-can-work/http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/harman-drone-courts-can-work/

1ac drone court

Documents