No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;Emphasis mine.
"This was a kill operation," one of the officials said.It's pretty pointless to debate over your personal definition of "a planned hit", but I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't "an arrest attempt".
Congress had refused authority for the commanders of our public vessels to "destroy pirates and piratical vessels found at sea or in uninhabited places," holding it inconsistent with the laws to punish without trial. [...] As for the retreat of the banditti into uninhabited parts of the islands, the commodore was told to pursue "only as long as there is reasonable prospect of being able to apprehend them," turning captives over to the local authorities for trial and punishment, or, if prosecution was not promised, holding them subject to the department's order. In port and in settled districts he could act only to aid the local authorities "to seize and bring the offenders to justice"[....]Of course, that was then. And this is now.
Where it concerns Pakistan, mainstream American media hardly ever seems to get around to the actual men, women, and plenty of children ripped apart by drones. Sadaullah and others like him are waiting to be heard in the mainstream U.S. press. They’ve volunteered time and again to speak to reporters. Photo and videos of them exist. The lawyer for some of these survivors and families of victims has offered interviews, and yet each time, the mainstream press refuses. No space. No time. Not right for us. The staff is too busy to verify.posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:10 PM on July 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
Another objection is that risk-free remote killing degrades traditional conceptions of valour. "You hear that from within the military and the average American on the street. That's a real concern, I share it. But when you speak to these pilots – or operators, there's a debate over the correct term - they'll tell you it's a very stressful job. Several of them have had PTSD. Think aboutYes. That has troubled me too: is it unmanly to kill people from a distance? Will it cheapen the sacrifices made by people who kill people with their hands, or at least with a tool that gives the soldier some physical sensation when he takes a life? And the answer is no. As anyone who plays Call of Duty can tell you, watching people die on a video screen can be stressful. We can rest easy, knowing that American soldiers will not become girly-men without intestinal fortitude.
what they see all day … you're watching people die on your screen."
« Older The WritersDiet Test... | Every other week, cdza ("colle... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I think that is what the article is really about. It describes the personal lives of Awlaki and his son not to glorify them, but to personalize them. It shows Obama and his administration as honorable, intelligent, lawful people having to make direct orders to kill an individual, and how that is different from bombing a target full of people you can't know or identify, whose faces you have never seen and family history you aren't aware of. It's a decision that may be necessary, but will have to weigh on the soul of any good person who decides to do it.
In the end, this isn't an anti-Obama article as much as it is critical of the concept of a Lethal Presidency and the power it puts in the hands of whoever inherits it:
You have made sure that you will not be the only Lethal President. You have made sure that your successor in the White House will also be a Lethal President, as well as someone somewhere else in the world.
What if the next Lethal President is not as good and as honorable as you? What if he is actually cruel or bloodthirsty?
What if he turns out to be — like you, Mr. President — just a man?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]