13 ms·
Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opin
by grey-area 13y ago
Let's consider a specific example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil...
The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered.
The people killed in this attack were either killed by mistake, or because they were nearby someone considered a target, eating at a restaurant. Because the reasons for killing were secret, if the president decided to include some of his enemies or political enemies of allies in Yemen, made a mistake, or was given false information, it would never be known, because the list is secret. We don't know why or even who was targeted.
In war we accept assassinations, murder without trial, and mass murder, because people are fighting for survival. But even in war only enemy fighters should be targeted, and civilians should not. We have a whole list of rules of war which are being ignored, and this is not even a formal war - war has not been declared, uniforms are not worn, so the rules of war do not apply, but if they did, they are being broken.
We find ourselves in a very murky area where the US is at war with an undefined and secret enemy, who may be anywhere in the world, and lives amongst the civilian population. The reaction of the Obama administration has been to order assassinations from a secret list, also killing any civilians nearby. There is no trial, no charge, and no suspicion, just a decision to kill and an attack, wherever the target may be. This means the president and his advisers have arrogated the power to decide on life or death for anyone on the planet, without limitation in time or space, and without justification or warning, and also killing civilians nearby.
The implications of this are that this war will never end, the targets are everywhere, and the list of enemies will continue to expand in secret. Nobody is safe, because anyone might be standing next to someone on Obama's list at some point, and the general terror and hate instilled by these methods will continually generate new enemies. The Obama administration has adopted terror as a method of war - they have become what they set out to fight.
- yapcguy 13y agoGood points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
- corin_ 13y agoThat still doesn't define who they are. Are you one of these terrorists? Am I? It maybe helps justify the US' actions, but as far as "undefined and secret enemy" it is only one step further than saying "Who are we targeting? The... bad guys!"
- chii 13y ago"No matter how hard he digs at his memory, Winston is uncertain whether a time existed when Oceania was not at war with someone." --1894
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago1984
- grey-area 13y agoIslamic terrorists is not a defined enemy; many people are Islamic, and any of them could be terrorists. The list of who is considered a terrorist is secret and we are not privy to which people or even organisations are considered enemies in this war on terror. The US is also frequently attacked by Christian terrorists. Terror aims to scare a population, but more importantly to drive a wedge between a government and its people by pushing the government into ever more repressive measures in an attempt to winnow out the terrorists, who can melt back into the population. The aim is precisely to force the government into ever more draconian measures which alienate the population and build support for the terrorists - to force the government to try to fight a war on the terrorists' terms. A great illustration of this from another era is the film The Battle of Algiers - torture, repression, removal of civil rights, and extra-judicial killing by the government in response are exactly what terrorism aims to achieve. Killing innocents in cafés is not the goal of terrorism, it's a means to an end, and that end is to force the government to adopt terror in response. The correct response to terror attacks is careful police work to track down the killers and bring them to justice, so that they can't continue to plant bombs. This can be done within our existing legal frameworks. The wrong response is to declare war on the the terrorists' terms, oppress your citizens, and kill yet more innocents in the cross fire as you target people on suspicion. Extra-judicial killing outside of war is as wrong as terror attacks, and as damaging for the parties involved, and eventually it comes to resemble terror itself.
- dkersten 13y agoIts almost like the Obama administration are the real terrorists.
- FatalBaboon 13y agoThat sounds awkwardly a bit like the 1950s witch hunt and McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Red_Scare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Red_Scare)