Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… January, 2019 December, 2018 November, 2018 October, 2018 September, 2018 August, 2018 July, 2018 June, 2018 May, 2018 April, 2018 March, 2018 February, 2018

Lawmakers sought ban on 'signature' drone strikes

Three members of the House Intelligence Committee recently made an unsuccessful attempt to ban so-called 'signature' drone strikes—attacks in which the targets of lethal U.S. actions are identified by their actions rather than as individuals.

However, the author of the intelligence authorization bill amendment that was voted down, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), told POLITICO Sunday that she plans to continue to press for a stop to such strikes because she views them as morally dubious and counterproductive for the U.S.

"I just think it is time for us to consider this kind of perpetual war and also take into account: what's the blowback? What's the negative consequences?" Schakowsky said. "It's a cost-benefit analysis as well, not just a moral question."

Schakowsky's amendment, which failed, 3-17, was discussed in general terms in a House report made public last week. However, the congresswoman gave a bit more detail about the measure Sunday, saying it would only have applied outside declared combat zones. Inside such areas, it is commonplace for military forces to attack suspected enemies without knowing their specific identities.

Schakowsky said she believes the U.S. intelligence community's tallies of casualties in such attacks undercount the number of so-called collateral deaths and injuries. "The problem there for me is that every adult male is considered an enemy combatant in that situation. When we talk about lack of collateral damage, we don’t really know if innocents are involved there," she said.

Schakowsky also said her measure, which garnered the support of Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.), included emergency exceptions. She said she couldn't detail the committee's debate because that took place in closed session, but called the exchange useful.

"It was a really excellent discussion...People have to think through the rationale," she said, adding that she's confident that "more members of Congress than it might appear would share those concerns if we have a full discussion."

In a speech in May, Obama defended the use of drone strikes and suggested they can often be more precise than other uses of force. He did not explicitly address "signature" strikes. However, he said that his standard for drone strikes, at least in the future, is that "there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured."

A spokeswoman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) had no comment on Schakowsky's amendment.

Ranking intel panel member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said in a statement Monday that he feared the proposed language could hamper anti-terrorism efforts.

“The President needs maximum flexibility to protect our country from a constantly changing, and still very dangerous, terrorist threat. We in Congress must continue to conduct vigorous oversight of all the President’s counterterrorism activities, but I cannot support an amendment which could effectively tie the President’s hands," Ruppersberger said.

The House panel also voted down, 5-15, an amendment from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to require an annual accounting of people killed or injured by U.S. drone strikes.

"Provisions offered by Minority Members also led to vigorous and principled debate. Minority Members have and will continue to ensure these topics receive thorough consideration and discussion," Democratic panel members said in a joint statement appended to the committee report. Schakowsky voted against the overall bill in a voice vote because of her concerns about the signature strikes issue, the report says.

The committee did adopt, by another voice vote, another amendment Schakowsky offered requiring the president to create a plan to deal with unauthorized disclosures of covert actions.

"There has to be some plan articulated—what if this becomes overt?…You think things are never going to come out, but that's how we get caught flatfooted," she said.

UPDATE (Monday, 4:00 P.M.): This post has been updated with comment from Ruppersberger.