Independent Reviewer of Drone Operations?

by kucheka on September 28, 2012

A thought-provoking essay on drone oversight options by Princeton PhD Candidate Omar S. Bashir:

How much transparency is enough? How can citizens know that the state is not overselling the sensitivity of details that it chooses to withhold?

…At least one other country faced with a similar dilemma, though, has arrived at a different solution. The United Kingdom struggled with terrorism well before 9/11. Over the years, its government has had to develop a way to demonstrate to citizens that it is not abusing counterterrorism powers. The answer is simply an appointed individual who has both legal expertise and a reputation for principled behavior and political impartiality. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, or “wise old man,” as Benjamin Wittes and Paul Rosenzweig at Lawfare have dubbed the figure, is paid at a daily rate and is not financially dependent on the state. In preparing reports for Parliament and the public about his opinions — sometimes critical — the reviewer is allowed access to any classified information he desires. But he is expected to keep the information secret. If the government impedes the reviewer’s access to information, he can raise a red flag. And if the government appoints a shill to the position, the credibility of the whole system evaporates. At election time, citizens can reward or punish their political leaders based on the reviewer’s pattern of assessments.

The independent reviewer model is palatable to governments because it enables accountability without necessarily increasing transparency (although greater transparency seems to have been a positive side effect in Britain). And the model has been successful enough that Australia has implemented it as well.

Image here.

 

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: