Home | About | Donate

We Need a Full, Transparent Review of the US Targeted Killing Program


#1

We Need a Full, Transparent Review of the US Targeted Killing Program

Sarah Knuckey, Hina Shamsi

In releasing information on April 23 about a drone strike that killed two western hostages in Pakistan in January, the Obama administration demonstrated that it is able and willing to acknowledge responsibility for strikes, carry out investigations into them, and publicly offer compensation to victims’ families.

This approach should be the rule rather than the exception.


#2

We Need a Full, Transparent Review of the US mercenary class.


#3

Let's stop calling them "targeted killings" and call them something more appropriate, such as "Death Squads" or "Civilian Terrorism".


#4

The program is just a small component of the 500 year old American Wars "of " Terror.


#5

While the fourth advisement--compensation to victims is just, fair and humane, this entire approach inadvertently grants an imprimatur of legality to protocols that are so horrific and so extra-judicial that any attempt to make accommodation with those who have arrogated to themselves the right to use such means is an exercise in the enabling of evil.

I am sure that this article's 2 authors mean well, but the task they delineate is nothing short of arguing justice with a sociopath. The killing squads that operate in the dark, murder on the basis of false rationales, and manufacture their own sanitized fallacious accountings of events are not entities amenable to justice.

In my mind, these demands (apart from #4) work to grant a patina of legitimacy to that which cannot BE legitimate. It's like asking the Inquisitors to make orderly lists of the homes they burn down and persons they burn as witches and heretics.

The chronicling of crimes against humanity may have a value; but not if emphasis is placed on proper protocols so that the killing fields may continue into perpetuity.

Real justice is asking for and demanding a world where there are no drones and where extremes of wealth along the with profligate sale of weaponry do not GUARANTEE pockets of aggression which then work as pretexts for State Sponsored Violence, and to those interested in such responses, a continuation of war.

In other words, rather than look for ways to justify existing protocols, work to cure the conditions that cause war and court aggression.


#6

From the article:

'In releasing information on April 23 about a drone strike that killed two western hostages in Pakistan in January, the Obama administration demonstrated that it is able and willing to acknowledge responsibility for strikes, carry out investigations into them, and publicly offer compensation to victims’ families.

'This approach should be the rule rather than the exception....

No, it should not! What an irresponsible and diabolical statement to write. Shame on the authors!

That approach requires acceptance of drone strikes, which no one should consider either legal, moral, or rational.


#7

No we don't. We need it to end IMMEDIATELY!

It is illegal, immoral, a violation of nations' sovereignty, a violation of international laws, and a war crime.

Bush and Obama are war criminals who should be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for life.


#8

In my mind, these demands (apart from #4) work to grant a patina of
legitimacy to that which cannot BE legitimate. It's like asking the
Inquisitors to make orderly lists of the homes they burn down and
persons they burn as witches and heretics.

I too found this earnest proposal ludicrous, thinking while reading: sounds like a meticulous, painstaking legal process for codifying wife-beating. "Arguing justice with a sociopath": how to compound madness with lucidity and logic.


#9

Thank you for the resonant response. Unfortunately, it does go to the bureaucrats within any authoritarian system to use formats and protocols to lend legitimacy to those acts that no sane, just, or humane society could or should ever prop up as valid. Even Mr. Ianetta saw the errors in such a morally bankrupt posture.


#10
Thank you. You bring up an extremely important point.
The principle of the "slightly lesser evil" is used widely by warmongers and their apologists.
But evil is evil:  it can't be more or less. 
There may be more of it, or there may be less of it, at any particular place or particular moment. 
 But it is the same evil.