June 25, 2012 issue
War made easy
Drone strikes put U.S. in assassination business
The drone — the latest achievement in better killing through technology — is changing the nature of warfare. Its purpose is “targeted killing.” Or, just call it “assassination” — a word that cuts to the heart of the legal and moral issues at stake.
Strikes by U.S. drones have killed at least 2,400 people in Pakistan alone since 2004. These unmanned, missile-armed aircraft have extended U.S. warmaking beyond the limits of international and U.S. law.
Drones represent the expansion and normalization of war. Lines that separated times of war and peace are gone. So are the lines that marked combat zones. Today the U.S. is always at war, everywhere — always on the offensive, always hunting and killing suspected terrorists. Pre-emptive attacks and acts of vengeance without trial are business as usual now.
Drone strikes violate moral and legal principles the U.S. used to affirm. In 2001, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, said on Israeli television, “The United States government is very clearly on the record against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
Now the president can order assassinations on a weekly basis. A recent New York Times article describes “terror Tuesday” teleconferences in which Obama administration officials and national security personnel pore over a “kill list” and “recommend to the president who should be the next to die.”
Critics of this program of assassination say it violates the U.S. Constitution, which restricts the president’s power to make war, and international law, which limits killing to war zones. Under the legal definition of armed conflict, the U.S. is currently authorized to use lethal force only in Afghanistan. But the president recently approved drone strikes in Yemen, in addition to Pakistan and Somalia, and has approved strikes even when the targets’ exact identities aren’t known. Drone strikes on unidentified people who are only suspected of being militants greatly increases the risk of killing innocents.
U.S. officials say civilian casualties are rare, but the claim relies on a huge loophole in the definition of “civilian.” According to the Times, U.S. officials have adopted a dubious method for counting civilian casualties: All military-age males in a strike zone are considered combatants unless there is explicit intelligence proving them innocent. Thus the “morality” of a drone strike is assured. Assuming everyone you kill is guilty, it’s easy to claim your war is just.
Ease is exactly the problem with drones. War is easier when no lives on your side are at stake. No need for boots on the ground. No need for approval from Congress. Just a weekly meeting to pick the targets. Just an unmanned aircraft operated like a video game from an air-conditioned facility in the U.S. Just a “surgical strike” to “take out” the “enemy” — along with whoever happens to be in the neighborhood. It’s a chilling vision of a shadowy war: a deadly flying robot and a president with a kill list.
Comments
-
Thank you, Paul, for this strong word of warning.
One of the disturbing aspects of the recent media accounts of President Obama's role in drone warfare is that the story was based on leaks from within the Obama Administration. Think about what this means: they expect the American people to respond positively to the President as kill-team leader.
I so want that not to be true. But Mitt Romney obviously thinks it is true because he is saying he'll be as bad as Obama and worse. And unless we and many others speak out against this lawlessness as Paul has done here, almost certainly the President's political advisors will have judged us correctly: we want our President to behave lawlessly, like a drug kingpin or a war lord.
-
I am against the dwindling war in Afghanistan, I have been against the war in Iraq since Day 1 and I am as deeply disturbed by the reports of the military and CIA use of drones as I am by the continued presence of private military contractors in Iraq. Having said that, I find it interesting that for almost 10 years, MC USA was unable to come up with a strong position against the War Based on a Blatant Lie. Interesting that, based solely on "leaks" and an NYT article in the middle of a presidential campaign, we're suddenly really, truly against the drone war. Interesting that we have an almost incoherent blog rant about Fast and Furious in the same issue. Interesting that it can all be traced back to the previous Republican administration. Interesting.
-
Debra, regarding your comments on Fast and Furious. After listening to Nancy Pelosi’s comment defending Eric Holder and blaming Republicans and then reading your comments, I could easily believe you and Nancy may be sisters. I strongly believe if it can all be traced back to the Republican administration as you state, the Dems would quickly show some evidence. Holder perjured himself under oath by making that accusation and later recanted.
Paul, In these times, there are many global bully individuals who have killer lists and they will use violence to achieve their objectives. One such bully in the past was Hitler. In WW II, over 60 million died. Look at the millions of lives that could have been saved if Hitler could have been surgically removed by current drone technology as his threat to peace developed. Knowing that, I believe current drone warfare results in saving lives and am supportive of it for that reason. Drone technology is specialized law enforcement and protection of human rights of people who are unable to defend themselves. As Ronald Reagan stated so well, you can run but you can’t hide.
-
I appreciate, as always, the MWR's editorial stance in support of Jesus' way of peace.
In response to Dale's comment --- can you cite an early Anabaptist or even an early Christian who would support the use of drone warfare, or for that matter any kind of warfare?
-
In response to Debra's comment --- It seems to me that war is a very bi-partisan affair.
-
James, you totally ignored my comments that I addressed to Paul Schrag. Use of drone warfare is a state issue and not a church issue. The New Age Anabaptists of today are unable to determine that marriage is solely between a man and a woman as the Bible clearly states. How then could I accept Anabaptist theology that the state has no authority to defend it’s borders against global bullies or employ local law enforcement against local bullies? We certainly could not rely on Anabaptists. History of WW II reveals pacifism leads to appeasement which in turn leads to war. Therefore we can conclude pacifism leads to violence and not peace. In Rom 13, the state is clearly ordained by God to use the sword. Further, in Rev 19, Jesus wages war on the nations and there are many casualties.
-
I am never surprised to find that creativity can be used for the purposes of power and empire. Drones are just another weapon in the cause of evil under the guise of fighting "bad guys." By the way, the military personnel using the drones call those designated as enemy, "bad guys." The next step, already being discussed and tried, is the use of drones to spy on and control the public of the USA by law enforcement agencies.
-
Dale,
Are you a Mennonite? --- I hope my question isn't too nosy, but I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
-
Speaking for Dale...
Yes James, Dale is a Mennonite. He's just not a left wing political Mennonite.
There are many levels of non-resistance, a religious and not a political stance. Dale is at one end of the spectrum of non-resistance and he refuses to be "shunned" or bullied by the extreme political-pacifist left spectrum of the Mennonite faith.
There are a LOT of Mennonites who like what Dale has to say. They are the quiet in the land. That's where he's coming from.
-
Herb, thanks for your comment, however it needs a correction. I am an exmenno. My maternal grandparents were born Amish and I was born in a Mennonite home and attended an independent Mennonite Church for many years, serving in many capacities.
Some of my friends in MC USA churches are Mennonite In Name Only (MINO) but we are in agreement with Bible teaching on many issues. Some of these MINOS have expressed appreciation for my comments and frustrations for where Mennonite/Anabaptist theology is going.
I grade Bible lessons for a prison ministry that uses the eight course lessons written by Mennonites for the Mennonite Hour radio broadcast which was discontinued many years ago. I believe the Mennonites who wrote the 99 lessons in the eight courses would be aghast with Mennonite/Anabaptist theology as currently expressed in The Mennonite and Mennonite World Review. BTW, could someone tell me what happened to B. Charles Hostetter, the Mennonite Hour Speaker for many years.
I am humbled with your last sentence. I hope my comments will continue to be Biblically responsible.
-
Dale, I very much enjoy reading your responses to many of the articles. Please keep up the good work.
-
Hi Dale, "History of WW II reveals pacifism leads to appeasement which in turn leads to war. Therefore we can conclude pacifism leads to violence and not peace. "
Really, we had WWII because of pacifism? I don't know who the "we" is in your statement, though I do know violence is innate, peace is not. Who are the "we"?
-
Steven, in the Munich Agreement signed by UK PM Neville Chamberlain and other heads of government in Europe, Hitler, the bully, was permitted the annexation Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland on the basis he would promise to discontinue his other territorial demands. This was appeasement strategy skillfully employed by Hitler and blindly accepted by the heads of government in UK, France and Italy without the head of the Czech government in attendance. He acquired this land area ‘peacefully’ reading the minds of the others in attendance. If the others had informed Hitler that they would fully support Czechoslovakia, the war, in my opinion would have been avoided. Instead of displaying a united show of strength, they displayed weakness and Hitler seized the opportunity they gave him. I believe Chamberlain orchestrated all of this because he was quick to take credit upon his return to England. He saw this as an opportunity to display his ‘diplomacy’ skills to the world.
The ‘we’ in my statement are people who can take lessons from failed pacifist based actions that led to WW II that evil appeased is never satisfied.
-
So as not to parade under false colors, I'm not Mennonite, but Methodist.
The references to WWII pacifism reminded me of something I read recently about the work European pacifists were doing to get Jews safely out of Germany.
When I asked my late husband, a historian and pacifist, the obvious question about Hitler, his response was that once war broke out, it was too late to be a pacifist. Pacifists, he said, can't be passive.
In a classroom, once Josh sets Ada's hair on fire, she needs a hospital and he needs a court date. BUT, before that moment, a good teacher is not passive. She can re-arrange the desks so that everyone has a little more room; help the children work through any conflict between them; teach Josh to express feelings with words or music or art; or get Josh the professional help he needs to control his impulses or deal with anger. At the last minute, she can have Josh come to the front to demonstrate part of the lesson; slide by his desk and silently pick up the matches; send one of them to deliver a note to another classroom or have everyone stand and stretch.
Shane Claiborne's accounts of The Way, an intentional community in North Philadelphia tell of being pacifist, but not passive, in the "hood."
-
Christianity does not fit Mr. Welty well, and he should consider the idea of adopting a different religion. I am completely serious. Judaism, for example, would fit him much better, and he would spare the Mennonites chronic vexation. Christianity is built around “love your enemies” and the Sermon on the Mount. Although Judaism prizes kindness and compassion, the rule of law, helping the helpless, and personal responsibility, it differs significantly from Christianity in some ways. Judaism rejects turning the other cheek, and it opposes showing mercy toward an enemy who is evil: “He who is merciful when he should be cruel will in the end be cruel when he should be merciful.” Also, Judaism permits and sometimes urges killing in the defense of others. From the Mishnah Torah 1:6-7, 9, “Every Jew is commanded to save a person being pursued for his life, even if it means killing the pursuer, and even if the pursuer is a minor. Thus, if warning is issued and he continues to pursue, the pursuer can be killed even without his acknowledging the warning. But if the pursuer can be stopped by disabling part of his body, by striking him with an arrow, a stone, or a sword . . . then that should be done. And this is a negative commandment, i.e., not to have mercy on the life of a pursuer.” This is a perfect fit for Mr. Welty’s worldview. He also elevates the state of Israel to a special political status, based on religion, which Christianity generally does not. Now, the question is, will he investigate this issue, e.g., through Telushkin or Kertzer, and see where it takes him?
-
Some of Dale Welty's comments, (6/24/12), on the June 25 editorial are quite unsustainable. One which deserves special attention is his statement that ... "Drone technology is specialized law enforcement and protection of human rights of people who are unable to defend themselves."
Referring to the technology as a type of law enforcement is patently unsupportable. It turns on the assumption that the US has jurisprudence in the countries where it is used. This assumption is false--These other countries are sovereign nations which have not granted the US complete, unequivocal jurisdiction to do the indiscriminate bombing which inevitably accompanies this technology.
"Protection of human rights of people..." is also a rather complete misnomer (and only his personal opinion)--Much more likely is the fact that the US is ultimately interested in is protecting US corporate oil investments and profits in these areas.
Mr. Welty should scrutinize his arguments more closely before he passes them on.
-
Mr. Benner, there is nothing in your comments that lead me to change any of my comments.
The UN nor any of the sovereign nations have opposed any of these surgical drone actions by the US to the best of my knowledge. I conclude the US is assisting the sovereign nations to target the terrorist bullies for the sake of saving innocent human lives.
It is your personal opinion that the US is simply protecting oil related profits. It is my understanding that we are buying crude oil on the open market, so the profit from well to barrel remains in OPEC countries. I would suggest you scrutinize your comments more closely before passing them on.
If you are a skilled assumer, have at it.
-
The nation of Pakistan has repeatedly called on the U.S. to stop violating its sovereignty by the drone flights.
So has the sovereign nation of Syria.
So did the sovereign nation of Libya before the U.S.led invasion ended that sovereignty.
So did the sovereign nation of Yemen before its head of government was deposed and replaced in an election in which the U.S. toady was the only candidate.
On the other hand, Dale is perhaps correct about Iraq and Afghanistan.
And that leaves Somalia.
I thought Ed Benner made an excellent point about jurisprudence. How can one say that this is law enforcement if the activity is entirely outside the scope of the law? It's an absurdity.
-
Berry, you mentioned several nations who you say ‘protested’. Did they organize and formally protest to the UN or did they protest for the sake of internal pressure from the terrorist bullies?
When sovereign nations knowingly harbor bully terrorists, then I support the use of outside force to root them out such as Osama bin Laden for the safety of innocent people. We live in difficult times where bully terrorists have a large influence on weak governments of sovereign nations.
At what point should the allied nations started to confront Hitler, head of the sovereign nation of Germany? Where does jurisprudence start and stop in WWII?
The pacifist nature of UK PM Chamberlain led to the deaths of 60 million people. Speak softly but carry a big stick—Theodor Roosevelt.
Do you think Jesus will consider your version of jurisprudence when he comes as the Commander in Chief of the army of Heaven on his white horse as we are told in Revelation 19?
-
Here is a quote from the June 21, 2012 issue of the Guardian:
"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.
"Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
"In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute 'war crimes'. His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
"Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.
"The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.
"If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then 'the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body'.
"Also present was Pakistan's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the 'totally counterproductive attacks' by the US in his country.
"Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: 'Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?'
"Some states, he added, 'find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognised as being an armed conflict.'
"If it is true, he said, that 'there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime'.
"Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. 'It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001,' he said. 'Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.'"
Dale, your reference to Hitler's Germany seems a bit extreme; it is the first time to my knowledge that anyone on this site has compared U.S. actions to Hitler's.
But you raise a good a question. What is the world to do with a nation that possesses at least one-half the world's weapons and claims the right to use those weapons at any time and in any place that it pleases, without regard to the sovereignty of other nation, without regard to international law, and without regard to its own Constitution. It's scary.
While our leaders like to say they don't believe that "might makes right", they behave exactly that way.
-
Berry, nothing you have written impresses me. You take what I say, distort it and then respond to the distortion you created. Thank you for the teaching moment.
-
Berry and Dale, why don't the two of you get a room?
-
Dale,
So I am the only one who assumes?
Why are you the only one among all the news sources I have read who uses the term "bully terrorists?" Can you cite another non-US source for that verbage? Likewise, what about the use of the word "surgical?" Has the US ever successfully proved that its air strikes were at least 98% on target? (And don't say that it doesn't have to--Of course it does!--Have any other countries ever accused it of being a rogue nation?) Can you prove that profits from well to barrel remain in OPEC countries? Can US corporate subsidiaries in OPEC countries pass profits along to their US corporate owners? Why do you say that the market is "open?" Can you prove that it is not controlled by any US corporate oil companies? Still looks to me like the case of the "pot calling the kettle black." And sorry, I haven't found anything instructive about your arguments, either.
Comment on the article War made easy
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download