Tomorrow, Obama will deliver a speech in part containing his thoughts on the legal rationale for killing people with Predator drone strikes (i.e. pre-emptive assassination). Note that these weapons really are named Predator but news references to them currently almost always call them simply drones in a continuing effort to desensitise people to what they are doing and, more importantly, why they are doing it. (CNN: Holder: Drone strikes have killed four Americans since 2009)
The legal rationale for using these weapons is quite simple: Bush did it first and, under similarly false logic, so Reagan performed pre-emptive strikes as well. Beyond that, they are a violation of every principle of American warfare. There is a looser example in Reagan's invasion of Panama to capture Noriega but the 'justification' for that one was the so-called War on Drugs rather than the even more contemptible War on Terrorism, neither of which have ever been declared by the United States Congress and neither of which fall under any principle of American warfare. That the true basis for the invasion of Panama was regime change rather than drug warfare was something most never bothered to review. Noriega refused to support Reagan's campaign against the Nicaraguan Contras and, shortly thereafter, Panama was invaded and Noriega was a 'prisoner of war.' (Wiki: Manual Noriega)
There is a longer example of unjustified invasion and that comes from Woodrow Wilson's interference in Mexico, specifically one invasion took place after the Tampico Affair and was because Mexico did not provide a 21-gun salute in addition to an apology after it arrested nine armed U.S. Navy sailors in an off-limits area of Veracruz. (Wiki: United States occupation of Veracruz)
While Woodrow Wilson's actions were often contemptible, they aren't particularly useful in the modern context and they provide no justification for pre-emptive attacks, in any case. The United States was not in danger from any of them whereas that is specifically the justification for the current types of engagements. If the administration can inculcate a sense of fear then attacking just about anything becomes justified and the administrations have managed to turn keeping the fear alive into quite a modern industry.
An example of manipulation of fear was the recent bombing in Boston in which three people were killed. There was media hysteria after the incident which was perpetrated for the most part independently from any organised campaign against the United States. Almost at the same time as that event, the West Fertilizer Company exploded in Texas and about twenty people were killed with massive property damage. There was almost no publicity at all beyond gee-whiz what a great video of the explosion. That the company exploded after years of violation of law and neglect of safety principles was hardly mentioned at all. In comparing those events, one has to wonder just what type of fear the administration wants to keep alive and why.
Similarly, last Monday sectarian violence in the now almost completely-destabilised Iraq resulted in about fifty deaths but very little was said about it, largely because such events there are now very common. At the same time, about fifty people were killed in Oklahoma by a tornado and, again, there was media hysteria over it. Of course there will be more attention to Oklahoma because it is closer to the hearts of Americans but the radical difference in coverage, particularly when America was responsible for the destabilisation of Iraq, does not reflect well on what the news channels are trying to accomplish.
One of the Americans killed by a Predator drone strike was Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic imam and ostensible planner of terrorist operations against the United States. Even the Nazis had their Nuremburg trials but al-Awlaki was summarily executed by a drone ordered by the CIA. Assuming the war on terrorism is legal, there is marginal justification for executing al-Awlaki. However, there was none at all for executing his 16-year-old son the same way two weeks later. (Wiki: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki)
Legal rationale for pre-emptive killing? This will be interesting to hear.
Update:
So now Obama has delivered the speech and announced what will change about drones and Guantanamo: absolutely nothing. A whole lot of speech but zero new content.
The legal rationale for using these weapons is quite simple: Bush did it first and, under similarly false logic, so Reagan performed pre-emptive strikes as well. Beyond that, they are a violation of every principle of American warfare. There is a looser example in Reagan's invasion of Panama to capture Noriega but the 'justification' for that one was the so-called War on Drugs rather than the even more contemptible War on Terrorism, neither of which have ever been declared by the United States Congress and neither of which fall under any principle of American warfare. That the true basis for the invasion of Panama was regime change rather than drug warfare was something most never bothered to review. Noriega refused to support Reagan's campaign against the Nicaraguan Contras and, shortly thereafter, Panama was invaded and Noriega was a 'prisoner of war.' (Wiki: Manual Noriega)
There is a longer example of unjustified invasion and that comes from Woodrow Wilson's interference in Mexico, specifically one invasion took place after the Tampico Affair and was because Mexico did not provide a 21-gun salute in addition to an apology after it arrested nine armed U.S. Navy sailors in an off-limits area of Veracruz. (Wiki: United States occupation of Veracruz)
While Woodrow Wilson's actions were often contemptible, they aren't particularly useful in the modern context and they provide no justification for pre-emptive attacks, in any case. The United States was not in danger from any of them whereas that is specifically the justification for the current types of engagements. If the administration can inculcate a sense of fear then attacking just about anything becomes justified and the administrations have managed to turn keeping the fear alive into quite a modern industry.
An example of manipulation of fear was the recent bombing in Boston in which three people were killed. There was media hysteria after the incident which was perpetrated for the most part independently from any organised campaign against the United States. Almost at the same time as that event, the West Fertilizer Company exploded in Texas and about twenty people were killed with massive property damage. There was almost no publicity at all beyond gee-whiz what a great video of the explosion. That the company exploded after years of violation of law and neglect of safety principles was hardly mentioned at all. In comparing those events, one has to wonder just what type of fear the administration wants to keep alive and why.
Similarly, last Monday sectarian violence in the now almost completely-destabilised Iraq resulted in about fifty deaths but very little was said about it, largely because such events there are now very common. At the same time, about fifty people were killed in Oklahoma by a tornado and, again, there was media hysteria over it. Of course there will be more attention to Oklahoma because it is closer to the hearts of Americans but the radical difference in coverage, particularly when America was responsible for the destabilisation of Iraq, does not reflect well on what the news channels are trying to accomplish.
One of the Americans killed by a Predator drone strike was Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic imam and ostensible planner of terrorist operations against the United States. Even the Nazis had their Nuremburg trials but al-Awlaki was summarily executed by a drone ordered by the CIA. Assuming the war on terrorism is legal, there is marginal justification for executing al-Awlaki. However, there was none at all for executing his 16-year-old son the same way two weeks later. (Wiki: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki)
Legal rationale for pre-emptive killing? This will be interesting to hear.
Update:
So now Obama has delivered the speech and announced what will change about drones and Guantanamo: absolutely nothing. A whole lot of speech but zero new content.
No comments:
Post a Comment