Rationalizing drone strikes

Thanks to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan releasing the so-called “Drone Memo,” or at least a heavily censored version of the document, the American People can now see part of what should have always been a public document.  This memo was supposed to clearly argue the US President has the legal authority to authorize targeted killings against terrorists, including US citizens.  If successful, it should have offered legal protection for those ordering and carrying out drone strikes while providing narrow, well-defined guidelines for when drone strikes can be used against a particular individual. 

Unfortunately, the document seems to be a patchwork of rationales, including the citation of “Al Qaida law,” that was engineered to shield those ordering drone strikes from culpability for potential wrongdoings.  If this was a legitimate argument favoring “targeted killings,” there should have been no need to hide it from the world.  In fact, allowing the American People to review the document would have afforded it greater legitimacy while allowing public debate the opportunity to reshape the policy would have forced national security officials to improve the document.  Just as the US Constitution is open to the public, along with all of our laws, the Drone Memo should have been public as it is an interpretation of publicly displayed laws.