Mike Maden - Drone

“Then the best thing we can do is to pick sides, it seems to me,” Myers concluded. “Pick one side and end the war. At least that would stop the violence and bring some form of stability.”

The room went silent, processing the implications of that statement.

“Objections?”

“How would you accomplish that?” Donovan asked.

Myers and Early shared a look. They kept their secret weapon—Pearce—to themselves.

“Decapitate the Castillo cartel.” Myers spat it out like the answer to an algebra problem. No emotion. Just fact.

“That’s quite an escalation, if you don’t mind my saying,” Donovan said.

“It’s what we did to take out the al-Qaeda leadership. It’s even how we battled the Mafia in this country. If you take out the Castillo leadership, you don’t have a Castillo organization,” Myers countered.

“With the added bonus that the Bravos will know we took out Castillo, will know we put them in power, and will know that we can take them out, too, if they cross us,” Early said.

“Just for argument’s sake, under what authority would you carry this out?” Donovan asked.

“According to the Constitution, the presidency possesses sole and supreme authority to wage war against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Myers said.

“But Castillo is a criminal, not a terrorist,” Donovan countered.

“What’s the difference between a criminal and a terrorist? Legally?” Jeffers asked.

“All terrorists are criminals in the eyes of the law, but not all criminals are terrorists,” Lancet answered. “And criminals have rights that terrorists don’t.”

“So what is a terrorist?” Early asked.

“That’s another interesting question. International law has no set definition of terrorism, which makes sense, considering the fact that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The U.S. Criminal Code, on the other hand, sets out a number of acts that fall under the rubric of either international or domestic terrorism, including acts that are ‘dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States’ and that appear to be intended ‘to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction.’”

“The ‘free meth’ attack perfectly fits that description in my mind,” Myers said. “Who decides if ‘free meth’ is an act of terrorism or if these men really are terrorists?”

“You,” Lancet said.

“That’s convenient,” Jeffers said.

Lancet continued. “You can thank the previous administration for that. The Holder DOJ issued a white paper that said, in effect, it’s lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside of the United States so long as ‘an informed, high-level government official’ of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. ‘Imminent,’ of course, being broadly redefined to mean ‘not necessarily in the near future,’ believe it or not.”

“But wasn’t that white paper referring specifically to the targeted killings of American citizens abroad who were members of al-Qaeda?” Donovan asked.

“Yes, but the principle would apply even more so to foreign nationals, in my opinion, at least according to the Constitution.”

“So the bottom line is, if I determine that the Castillo organization is a terrorist organization and poses an imminent threat to the health and safety of this country, I have the constitutional authority to act against them?” Myers asked.

Lancet nodded. “In terms of constitutionality, I would say yes. Congress, on the other hand, would almost definitely disagree.”

“The vice president as well, I’m sure,” Jeffers added.

“You’re referring to the War Powers Resolution,” Myers said.

“Yes, and by extension, the Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed in 2001 in response to 9/11. Congress authorized the president to deploy U.S. military forces to kill or capture members of al-Qaeda and related organizations responsible for the attack. The drone attacks and targeted killings of terrorists since then have all fallen under the AUMF. Congress hasn’t given you such authorization yet for operations against the drug cartels.”

“Because I haven’t asked for it. Should I?”

“You could,” Jeffers said. “But then they wouldn’t give it to you, at least not without steep concessions. The hawks would want all of their spending increases restored, and the progressives would want their piece of the fiscal pie, too, so say good-bye to your budget freeze and the balanced budget amendment.”

“So I have to fight Congress before I can fight Castillo? No, thank you,” Myers said. “Besides, many legal scholars question the constitutionality of the WPR. No president from Nixon through Obama has ever agreed that the WPR has binding authority over the office. Isn’t that correct, Dr. Strasburg?”

“That is correct, Madame President,” Strasburg said with a smile. “Yourself included, apparently.”

Jeffers nodded. “No president has ever agreed that the WPR is legally binding, but for the most part, they’ve all adhered to the WPR out of political expediency because Congress is the place where the defense checks get written.”

“Which actually leads to another broad area of law to consider,” Lancet said. “It’s a question of scale. The constitutional debates surrounding the War Powers Resolution notwithstanding, the president has the unchallenged right to deploy limited force in specific situations. The point of War Powers was to keep us out of large-scale foreign wars without congressional approval, not to keep us out of all military engagements.”

“So, just to be clear, if I issue an executive order declaring Castillo and his organization an imminent terrorist threat, I have at least some legal ground to stand on?” Myers asked.

“In my opinion, yes, so long as the attack complies with the four fundamental law-of-war principles.”

“Which are?”

“Necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity—avoiding unnecessary civilian deaths. Feasibility of capture and undue risk to U.S. personnel should also be taken into consideration. That’s why targeted drone strikes have been so popular. They tend to meet all of those law-of-war principles.”

Myers and Early exchanged another glance. Still not the time to talk about Pearce.

“Would the ACLU agree with your analysis?” Jeffers asked.

Lancet barked out a laugh. “Hell, no! There are as many opponents to drone strikes as there are supporters, and they are on both sides of the aisle. But opinions change, don’t they? Harold Koh was one of the Bush administration’s harshest critics, particularly in regard to waterboarding, which he viewed as an act of torture and a violation of human rights. But when he became the legal advisor for President Obama’s State Department, he suddenly became an ardent proponent of targeted killings and drone strikes.”

“So splashing a little water on my face is bad, but blowing me up with a Hellfire missile is okay?” Early asked.

“Where you stand depends on where you sit, right?” Lancet said. “You know, there’s actually one interesting argument about drones. Because they are unmanned weapons systems, no actual U.S. personnel are sent into combat. Some folks think that means drones aren’t technically ‘armed forces’ and therefore War Powers doesn’t apply anyway.”

Donovan leaned forward on his elbows. “Aren’t we missing something here? We’re talking about an attack on Mexican citizens on Mexican soil. Isn’t that an act of war?”

Strasburg cleared his throat. “The Mexican government might take umbrage at the assault, but I doubt they’d consider it an act of war. If they did, they would have to respond in kind.” The old diplomat allowed himself a smile. “There isn’t much chance of that, is there? Consider the Pakistanis. SEAL Team Six sent troops into Pakistan without either their knowledge or permission and killed Bin Laden, primarily because we couldn’t trust the Pakistanis to not betray the operation or warn Bin Laden in advance. The Pakistani government was deeply offended by the Bin Laden raid and our relationship with them is still badly strained. But in the final analysis, what are they going to do about it?”