The drone playbook, "PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING DIRECT ACTION AGAINST TERRORIST TARGETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES," says on page 1 that any "direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets," yet the guidelines never reference international or domestic laws that define when extrajudicial killings outside of an active war zone are permitted.
On page 4, the guidelines for drone strikes allow for lethal action against those who are not "high value targets," without explaining the criteria the CIA would use to identify someone as an imminent threat to the security of the United States. On page 12, the co-authors, Haines among them, redacted the minimum profile requirements for an individual "nominated" for lethal action. The very term "nominated" suggests an effort to sugarcoat targeted assassination, as though the bombing target is recomended for a U.S. presidential cabinet position. [NOTE: You might (somewhat sarcastically) want to put "[sic]" after the first use of the word "nominated"]
Moreover, the guidelines themselves were often totally disregarded. The policy states, for example, that the U.S. "prioritizes, as a matter of policy, the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action" and that lethal action should be taken "only when capture of an individual is not feasible." But the Obama administration did nothing of the sort. Under George Bush, at least 780 terrorist suspects were captured and thrown into the U.S.-run gulag in Guantanamo. Haines's guidelines prohibit transfer to Guantanamo so, instead, suspects were simply incinerated.
The guidelines required "near certainty that non-combatants will not be killed or injured," but this requirement was routinely violated, as documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Haines's policy guidance also states that the U.S. would respect other states' sovereignty, only undertaking lethal action when other governments "cannot or will not" address a threat to the U.S. This, too, became simply empty words on paper. The U.S. barely even consulted with the governments in whose territory it was dropping bombs and, in the case of Pakistan, openly defied the government. In December 2013, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously approved a resolution against U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, calling them a violation of "the charter of the United Nations, international laws and humanitarian norms" and Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: "The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country." But the U.S. ignored the pleas of Pakistan's elected government.
The proliferation of drone killings under Obama, from Yemen to Somalia, also violated U.S. law, which gives Congress the sole authority to authorize military conflict. But Obama's legal team, which included Haines, circumvented the law by insisting that these military interventions fell under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law Congress passed to target Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. This specious argument provided fodder for the out-of-control misuse of that 2001 AUMF which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has been relied on to justify U.S. military action at least 41 times in 19 countries.
In addition, the guidelines don't even require the CIA and other agencies participating in the drone program to notify the President, the Commander-in-Chief, as to who is to be killed in a drone strike, except when a targeted individual is a U.S. citizen or when the agencies in charge cannot agree on the target.
There are many other reasons to reject Haines. She advocates intensifying crippling economic sanctions on North Korea that undermine a negotiated peace, and "regime change"--hypothetically engineered by a U.S. ally--that could leave a collapsed North Korea vulnerable to terrorist theft of its nuclear material; she was a consultant at WestExec Advisors, a firm that exploits insider government connections to help companies secure plum Pentagon contracts; and she was a consultant with Palantir, a data-mining company that facilitated Trump's mass deportations of immigrants.
But Haines's record on torture and drones, alone, should be enough for Senators to reject her nomination. The unassuming spy -- who got her start at the White House as a legal adviser in the Bush State Department in 2003, the year the U.S. invaded Iraq -- might look and sound more like your favorite college professor than someone who enabled murder by remote control or wielded a thick black pen to cover up CIA torture, but a clear examination of her past should convince the Senate that Haines is unfit for high office in an administration that promises to restore transparency, integrity, and respect for international law.
Tell your Senator: Vote NO on Haines.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
