3 ms·

I agree with you that citizenship should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. Even so, I don't understand how a targeted drone strike in Yemen

I agree with you that citizenship should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. Even so, I don't understand how a targeted drone strike in Yemen is an acceptable choice for the USG, regardless of who is killed. Would it be okay for another country to conduct such drone strikes on US soil? If not, which countries are allowed do do such things, and where, and why? How can you prove that lives were saved by the drone strike?

tptacek 13y ago
What does "OK" mean? Nations interact in the state of nature.
ctdonath 13y ago
"OK" and "allowed" in this context practically refers to whether and what the host/target country will do about it. If that's "nothing" or very close thereto, then by Law Of The Jungle (which is the nature of military action) the answer is "yes". If that's "the perpetrators will be hunted down & killed, and the presiding government overthrown, and maybe another country's government will also get overthrown while we're at it", then the answer is "no". The point of military action is that all other viable diplomatic options have been exhausted, and something must be done to stop an avowed enemy. We're not going to sit around waiting for known terrorists to carry out successful attacks on innocents before doing something to stop them. "Reflective contemplation is not required in the presence of an upraised knife." Once such military action is deemed necessary, the question then is whether a single drone destroying a few rooms and their occupants with zero direct risk to US troops is (or isn't) preferable to destroying several city blocks (at minimum) and their occupants with significant risk to our personnel. You demand proof, but only from a position of prejudiciously rejecting any given.
- tptacek 13y ago
  FWIW: The "upraised knife" quote is Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Brown v US, and goes "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." This is Holmes rejecting the idea that a defendant invoking self defense must carefully reason whether he can safely flee, rather than employing deadly force.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    This is also the much-overlooked basis for "stand your ground" laws, which are not a license for citizens to kill, but are instead a reminder to the state that if deadly force is warranted then retreat is not a viable option to demand of the defendant.

tptacek 13y ago

What does "OK" mean? Nations interact in the state of nature.

ctdonath 13y ago

"OK" and "allowed" in this context practically refers to whether and what the host/target country will do about it. If that's "nothing" or very close thereto, then by Law Of The Jungle (which is the nature of military action) the answer is "yes". If that's "the perpetrators will be hunted down & killed, and the presiding government overthrown, and maybe another country's government will also get overthrown while we're at it", then the answer is "no". The point of military action is that all other viable diplomatic options have been exhausted, and something must be done to stop an avowed enemy. We're not going to sit around waiting for known terrorists to carry out successful attacks on innocents before doing something to stop them. "Reflective contemplation is not required in the presence of an upraised knife." Once such military action is deemed necessary, the question then is whether a single drone destroying a few rooms and their occupants with zero direct risk to US troops is (or isn't) preferable to destroying several city blocks (at minimum) and their occupants with significant risk to our personnel. You demand proof, but only from a position of prejudiciously rejecting any given.

tptacek 13y ago
FWIW: The "upraised knife" quote is Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Brown v US, and goes "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." This is Holmes rejecting the idea that a defendant invoking self defense must carefully reason whether he can safely flee, rather than employing deadly force.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  This is also the much-overlooked basis for "stand your ground" laws, which are not a license for citizens to kill, but are instead a reminder to the state that if deadly force is warranted then retreat is not a viable option to demand of the defendant.