Just received this automated response to some anti-drone letter I sent to the white house (sent several months ago)... In short, it says "We got your message, and chose to ignore it for a while until we could draft this propagandized response." Dear Alexis: Thank you for writing. I understand the strong views many Americans have about the use of remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones, and I appreciate your perspective. I remain firmly committed to defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces. In pursuing that mission, we must define our effort not as a boundless “global war on terror,” but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries to arrest and prosecute terrorists. But despite our strong preference for that approach, it is sometimes foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth. In some of these places, the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory, or lacks the capacity or will to take action. And it is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose unacceptable risks to our troops and local civilians. It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions—about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under domestic and international law; about accountability and morality. In a speech I delivered in May 2013, I addressed these questions. First, I noted that our actions are effective. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, domestic transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. These strikes have saved lives. Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on September 11, 2001. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. This is a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. And yet, to say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. The same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power—or risk abusing it. That is why my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists, insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight, and accountability. Outside the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not conduct strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set. Ultimately, we know that the use of force alone cannot make us safe. It must come as part of a larger, comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that patiently supports transitions to democracy and promotes peace in war-torn regions. But by coupling targeted action against terrorists with effective partnerships and diplomatic engagement, we can significantly reduce the chances of large-scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. Thank you, again, for writing. Sincerely, Barack Obama
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:49:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015