Skip to main content

View Diary: Eugene Robinson on Assassination by Remote Control (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You've accurately listed the options. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, johnny wurster

    1 and 2 are ridiculous and they put our security at the mercy of hostile and/or ineffectual states.  3 means infinitely more violence and killing than what we do now.  4 is legitimate but it's the ultimate discretionary decision of the government, not something we can blithely insist about.  You can see why assassination is attractive.  It's certainly my choice.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:34:52 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Choice between doing something and doing nothing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, Persiflage

      I see it as a choice between  doing something and doing nothing.
      Options 1, 2, 3 are unworkable, Option 4 is unacceptable.
      And then there's option 5

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:44:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Either we have a Constitution or we don't (9+ / 0-)

      W/ current drone strike policy, as I already noted, we currently don't have a Constitutional system of gov't.  We have, in essence, an elected monarch who has unilateral, unrestricted, and unreviewable authority to kill people on the other side of the planet.

      As of last September, roughly as many people had been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan alone as were killed here on 9/11:

      TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.

      Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

      It also highlights harm "beyond death and physical injury," publishing accounts of psychological trauma experienced by people living in Pakistan's tribal northwest region, who it says hear drones hover 24 hours a day.

      If a McCain or a Romney WH claimed the unreviewable right to kill a few thousand people based upon secret criteria and secret evidence, this site would (correctly) be outraged.  The fact that a Dem WH is claiming such a power in violation of every founding principle of our system does not make it less outrageous.   The basic concept is similar to that of Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, which was (correctly) condemned here in 2008.

      Either we have a govt. of laws, or we have a govt. of men (and a few women).  The drone strike policy clearly adopts the latter viewpoint.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:10:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't rec this enough. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RFK Lives, papahaha, snoopydawg

        DKos has never - in my experience - stood for individual Democrats, it has always stood for Democratic principles, one of which is government by law, not by decree.

        This doesn't stop when a Democrat is elected.

        "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

        by Australian2 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 07:56:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The issue is we are at war with al Qaeda, which (0+ / 0-)

          declared war on the US government and killed 3000 individuals in New York City. al Qaeda's drones were airplanes that they used to blow up building and kill indiscriminately.

          I don't want to sound uncaring about this, especially when you consider the countless lives lost, but during World War Two, the US and allied forces bombed the dickens out of Berlin and other cities in Germany to kill members of the German army and in the process killed many of innocent lives. Are we honestly saying the drone program is worse than those past operations?

          Or perhaps the world should not have taken the fight to Hitler and Germany at all, but go into Germany and haul these individuals into court?

          A State of war exists between al Qaeda and the US and the US has the right to go after these individuals in the prosecution of this war, the drone program is far less destructive than carpet bombing these territories from the air. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on how you would handle this situation.

      •  I somewhat agree with your statement (0+ / 0-)

        But what's the alternative? Some people above stated some of them but they are mostly unworkable. What do we do about those people who are actively trying to kill us? I understand both sides of the argument but I don't see any reasonable alternatives to the current situation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site