Obama finally apologizes for murder by drone strike... since it was an American

[Mudhammam]

The flawed assumption in many of the above posts is that every target we bomb is a terrorist, and the civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" (That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?).

That the U.S. is in a current state of "wartime" is debatable. Congress is usually required to give some sort of authorization for that, per the War Powers Act. That's why there was a big fuss when Obama gave military authorization for campaigns in Libya without seeking support from Congress first. If we were at war with Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan, the excuse that we're at war so people die (fuck em then) might be more plausible. Rather, the Obama administration, like Bush and probably the future President, thinks he has the authority to bomb whatever country the "terrorists" are in because,as Rumsfeld and Cheney and the neo-cons in power at that time declared, the world is our battlefield.

I think the great Howard Zinn said it best:



The sad truth is how targets are located. The CIA relies on NSA metadata bulk collection. They often don't even determine the "terrorist" by listening to the content of the calls but simply by duration, contacts, etc. So, if you buy a cell phone from your neighbor down the street who has a cache of old phones, you might be a "terrorist."

Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald did some excellent reporting on this, thanks to the intimate access to NSA programs that exile Edward Snowden gave them.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/...cret-role/

[AFTT47]

I imagine a lot of people are familiar with the rather odd 1985 movie, Real Genius. The premise was centered around a college physics professor developing a powerful laser capable of vaporizing a human target from space. Much was made of the fact that this was assassination and therefor unethical. They weaseled around the issue though by focusing on the fact that the professor wasn't personally doing shit, embezzling the government grant while having his genius students unwittingly doing the work.

The real-life drones aren't as sexy as the fictional tiny shuttle with the killer laser but idea and end result is exactly the same. We kill people with the push of a button - without trial. It is assassination. Whether it is justifiable or not is another issue.

I personally took part in Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1992 and did often muse that it seemed like a lot of work because of one asshole (Saddam Hussein). It would have been much simpler and much cheaper (in terms of resources and lives) to just kill the bastard. Would that be ethical? Kill the one son of a bitch without trial in order to save lives on both sides? I don't think it's a simple question. Maybe there is no correct answer.

[abaris]

The flawed assumption in many of the above posts is that every target we bomb is a terrorist, and the civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" (That has a nice ring to, doesn't it?).

Yes, it dehumanizes, which is the whole purpose. Collateral has no face and no blood. That's the one and only lesson the fuckers took home from Vietnam. People don't like to be associated with the ugly sides of war and so they simply created some Orwellian terms to cover the shit so Joe Ordinary can sip his beer in peace.

[Mudhammam]

I might add that we aren't even supposed to know about drone strikes (unless we take out "Al-Qaeda's #2," which seems to happen a lot). The Obama administration has tried to keep the public in the dark about it as much as possible. So even if you support drone strikes on account that we are in a "war" that we can only win by killing more "bad guys," are you really okay with it being done in secret and without any oversight? (This isn't directed at anyone in particular btw).

[Hatshepsut]

....and the civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" (That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?).

No, they are people's lives. But I suppose we can do nothing and just let IS and the other groups strike whoever they want, because our hands are so pure we're forbidden to act in defense of the civilized world if someone gets hurt. I don't see IS sharing this nice value; they kill their own fellow Muslims for not being zealous enough, and have no compunctions about women or kids.

[Minimalist]

It would have been much simpler and much cheaper (in terms of resources and lives) to just kill the bastard.

Um...we did that and the whole region went to shit.  Saddam's Iraq is looking pretty good right now.  That shithead Bush, notwithstanding.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I really don't think that apologizing for a death four months after the fact merits a 'finally'.  For heads of state who apologize at all, that's pretty damned quick.

It took the British government 150 fucking years to apologize for and acknowledge their responsibility for the deaths of a million Irish. 

Boru

[AFTT47]

It would have been much simpler and much cheaper (in terms of resources and lives) to just kill the bastard.

Um...we did that and the whole region went to shit.  Saddam's Iraq is looking pretty good right now.  That shithead Bush, notwithstanding.

Indeed. I'm not questioning whether or not that kind of policy is effective. It will vary depending on the situation. I'm questioning whether it can be considered moral if it does prove effective.

[abaris]

But I suppose we can do nothing and just let IS and the other groups strike whoever they want, because our hands are so pure we're forbidden to act in defense of the civilized world if someone gets hurt.

Oh climb down from the high moral horse already. Yes, it's all about defending the civilized world. But only if there's time between the Saudi asskissing and giving the defense contractors a blowjob. Let's not forget who's laid the foundations for that mess in the first place. Back in 2003, by starting an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It would have been much simpler and much cheaper (in terms of resources and lives) to just kill the bastard.

Um...we did that and the whole region went to shit.  Saddam's Iraq is looking pretty good right now.  That shithead Bush, notwithstanding.

I think ATT is onto something, though. The real reason Iraq flew apart wasn't that Saddam was overthrown, captured and killed, I don't think. The real reason is that with both the army and the police disbanded, the only forces for maintaining stability were American, who were obviously hated and distrusted by all parties except perhaps the Kurds ... and the American forces had zero experience policing a foreign population riven by schism.

I think assassination might have turned the better trick if it was really important to us. A better solution would have been to let the Iraqi resistance handle its own business.