Brazil to monitor Bolivian skies with drones

Brazil and Bolivia are in the final stages of reaching a deal to allow Brazil to operate unmanned aerial drones over the border with Bolivia. According to BBC Mundo, the deal--the details of which will be released only upon final approval--is expected to see Brazil play an increasingly lead role in counter narcotics operations throughout the Southern Cone.

The use of drones in Brazil, soon over neighboring countries' airspace, is increasing in the context of decreased U.S. presence in the region and an increased drug trade through the Southern Cone. In 2008, the Bolivian government kicked out the American DEA following accusations of "political meddling." Over the same time period, research is beginning to show an increasing flow of drugs through Brazilian, Argentine, and Uruguayan ports. Cocaine consumption in the U.S. has declined nearly 40 percent in the last decade, according to government figures, while consumption in Europe has risen. The European market is now nearly the size of the U.S. market, and Europeans generally pay more per kilo for cocaine.

Increased operations along the U.S.-Mexican border and cooperation with Central American interdiction efforts has put pressure on traffickers seeking to bring their product to market--as a result, the European market, and shipping routes from the southern cone (via west Africa) have become increasingly attractive. The notorious "tri-border" area between Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina, has become somewhat of a hot spot for drug movers, organized crime, and according to some reporting, Hezbollah.

The 14 Heron model drones, purchased from the Israeli firm Israel Aerospace Industries for a total of around $350 million, are capable of flying for 37 hours straight, and can cover over 1000 kilometers.

Bolivian Ambassador to Brazil Jerjes Justiniano said "Bolivia has a very positive view" towards anti-drug cooperation with Brazil. It wasn't clear whether the Brazilians anticipated participating with Bolivia on the ground, when it comes to destroying illicit plantations or laboratories.

Sunshine and Shadows: New light shed on Obama administration's drone war casts darker shadows on clandestine operations

The Obama administration's execution of shadowy drone operations in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere, widely covered in the media but officially unacknowledged, may be his most lasting foreign policy legacy, and the most descriptive element of an "Obama Doctrine." The drone operations, inherited from Obama's predecessor and then expanded, came under serious scrutiny after the administration killed U.S. citizen and Al-Qaeda capo Anwar al-Awlaki in late 2011.

This week, the administration's legal justification for its policy of killing American citizens engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. surfaced in the form of a leaked 2011 Justice Department white paper. Writing for Foreign Policy, Rosa Brooks has a great breakdown of the core legal arguments, and the incredible discretion afforded to the administration in targeting and eliminating enemies.

The document is not a strategy paper; rather, it is a justification of the lawfulness of an array of actions the administration may take, or may have taken against U.S. citizens engaged in armed conflict against the U.S. It is a preemptive defense of a policy it knows will likely run into serious legal challenges somewhere down the line.

"The paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qu'ida or an associated force would be lawful..."

It is notable for its seemingly innocuous yet vague language. The three conditions are as follows: "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

Words and phrases like "informed, high-level official," "imminent," and "applicable law of war principles" are what worry critics of the administration's justification. As Brooks points out, the document does a poor job of defining each term, thus leaving itself legal ground to which it can retroactively appeal in the face of some future legal challenge.

The administration said it will release additional classified memos expounding on the legal justification for targetting of U.S. citizens today. This comes on the heels of intense pressure from Congress and the day Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin for John Brennan's appointment to head the CIA.