For years, the United States has danced around the fact that it has repeatedly enter the sovereign territory of other countries with drone attacks and in some cases small unit attacks without the permission of countries like Pakistan. Such acts violate international law and would be viewed by the United States as an act of war if committed on U.S. territory. This week,Defense Secretary Leon Panetta finally responded directly to those objections and said that the attacks would continue unabated. Panetta essentially stated that we can invade other nations because we can and that countries will have to come to accept that — using the same concept as “floggings will continue on ship until morale improves.”
Panetta insisted this is really not them (other countries) but us. Speaking in India, he proclaimed “This is about our sovereignty as well.” As for Pakistan, which has repeatedly objected to attacks on its territory, Panetta said “It’s a complicated relationship, often times frustrating, often times difficult. They have provided some cooperation. There are other times when frankly that cooperation is not there.” Strangely, we would not view the relationship as complicated if Mexico sent drones into Texas to take out suspects or landed Mexican special forces in Arizona to kill enemies. We would treat it as a matter of war.
Panetta has finally made “American exceptionalism” official policy. We do these things simply because we can; because we are the United States. From torture to military tribunals to hit lists, the United States is above the legal standards that we impose on others. The greatest danger is that our hypocrisy abroad is turning into hypocrisy at home where we continue to claim to be the “land of the free” while stripping citizens of basic rights and expanding unchecked presidential and police powers.
Obama has expanded drone attacks to an unprecedented level while expanding his claimed authority to kill citizens without a charge or trial. Now the most common image of the United States abroad is not our Constitution but our drones. For many people around the world, Panetta’s speech will be viewed as adding unrestained arrogance to unrestrained power.
Source: ABC
mepso,
Are you saying that there is coordination between groups? I’m not talking about intra-group organization. I’m talking about inter-group organization. These groups often have competing agendas and vastly differentiated tactics and criteria for target selection.
Gene H:
I don’t think terrorists are random or isolated if that treasure trove of info taken from OBL’s porn room is any indication.
Mike A:
“The essence of your argument is that power provides legitimacy. History is littered with the victims of that doctrine.”
***********************
And it’s beneficiaries including the US, the UK, France, Spain, an on and on.
I am a moral relativist in international matters. I don’t think states consider morality unless their survival is assured. I also think affording Western notions of morality to peoples without the slightest inclination to adopt or abide by them is foolishness of the highest order. The simple fact — so eloquently stated by Machiavelli — is that power (and not morals) does control world affairs. Or as he timelessly put it, “Politics have no relation to morals.” To believe otherwise ignores history, as you say.
We live in the garden that is the US. We carved out that garden precisely by revolution, internal conflict, aiding our allies in military campaigns that threatened their survival, and repulsing attacks from those who would do us in. That, in one sentence, is a pretty fair summary of US foreign policy from 1776 to today.
Our internal morality bears little resemblance to the rules we adopted to create or maintainthe garden. We didn’t negotiate with the British, nor sign a treaty to end the Civil War. Likewise we went to the aid of our allies in both WW1 & 2, first under guise of neutrality and then as full combatants. Only in the latter case did we have the slightest justification of self-defense.
Morality, like law, only works if most all the parties so constrained agree to it. A few malcontents won’t upset the apple cart but enough polarization and both law and morality break down. That applies to societies, too. That is the great flaw of our political system. We are now so polarized at the extremes that we can’t even agree that it is “moral” to protect ourselves from criminals who would gladly and bloodily dispense with any niceties of the “morality” we may subscribe to here in the garden.
We can argue causation if you care to do so, but can we just agree that our current policy of drone attacks make an attack on our soil less likely? If so, I see no downside in the absence of international criticism — of which there has been precious little.
As to your other point about the proportionality of our response, I ask you: if you are engaged in a life or death struggle with persons so utterly deranged by their concepts of religion or politics that they form an endless line of people willing to sacrifice themselves and their children, have you any choice except to utterly and completely destroy them? We faced that challenge with kamikaze attacks in the Pacific and the dropping of the hydrogen bombs was the inevitable result. As Truman knew, proportionality presumes rationality. Do we consider the terrorists rational actors or deluded religious robots willing to kill themselves and their children in their cause? As with the kamikazes,I think the answer is clear.
You may reject Machiavelli, but his observation that, “Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared” seems awfully viable to me today.
I take no pleasure in outlining the very real issues facing us, nor the realistic and pragmatic ways that we must adopt to address the issues. As the maestro of politics said, “Politics have no relation to morals.” The quicker we accept that truism the better off we will be, our tender sensibilities in dealing with our adversaries be damned.
As someone said earlier, “The Romans were the kings of pragmatism.” And so they were, protecting their citizens for a thousand years in an environment full of ferocious tribes and ceaseless war. It was called Pax Romana for a reason, and as Gibbons notes it’s decline can be directly traced to its loss of martial vigor.
You can learn a lot from the ancient Romans about how to run a nation internally, but even more instructive is how they protected a nation from barbarians at the gate. I believe that lesson instructive and apposite today.
Gene, I agree with the ‘noun’ observation. The so called war on terror would be more accurately named if it were identified as a campaign for eradicating terrorists. That is why I said earlier that it ought to be dealt with the same way we deal with any criminal enterprise. Whole countries are not responsible for the Mafia or drug cartels. Some of our activities make as much tactical sense as if we invaded Columbia or Mexico because of the actions of drug cartels located there. When it comes to targeting somebody who is out to kill me, my family or my neighbors, I don’t have a squeamish bone in my body. But I see no real need for eliminating the infrastructure of a country, even if it is a tribal territory.
mespo,
It sounds a lot like you’re making the Gambler’s fallacy in looking at the probabilities, mespo – an incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. Due to the very nature of terrorism operating in cells and having multiple players on the field, the acts themselves can indeed be characterized is separate, independent and random. This is part of the problem with declaring war on a noun instead of specific quantifiable targets.
DonS:
“What another strike may or may not have caused is theoretical, according to the experts.”
*************************
Do we really have to experience another attack before we move from the theoretical to highly likely?
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, June 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm
The testimony of Bob Graham in several lawsuits against The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia says that The Kingdom financed 79% (15 of 19) of the 9/11 hijackers. Iraq financed 0%, which leaves Afghanistan with a maximum involvement of 21%.
We have done the most devastation to the nation that did 0%, the second most destruction to the nation that did 21%, and NONE to the nation that did 79%.
That supports a general and an economist who say that is because a coup took place that changed our nation forever.
————————–
How long Dredd, do you think, before that truth can be voiced in the public square and recognized as truth by the public?
After all, a problem unrecognized can never be dealt with let alone solved. Who is benefitting by this current state of affairs?
========================================
Only The Private Empire knows.
Makaainana,
Let me use you as a launch pad to others here.
The world does not vote in the USA elections. And we are in the hands of our leaders. Do we all agree on that.
After reading the comments, skimming, it looks like there is no consensus.
It is a domestic affair, Sweden put a few heads in Afghan (token battalion) and got ourselves a bomb as a Christmas present.
The odd thing is that NOT a one here is a false-flagger on 9/11.
Since we put the bomb on the table in ’45, the aymetrical
war began, with a little help from money-hungry Pakistani scientists.
But no fear, we’ve probably got satellites which can track radioactivity moving in a container or a ship. So sleep well, your CIA is guarding you well. The ones who delivered the wrong maps of Granada.
BFM,
Oddly I thought that i’d seen the same What me worry grin on Rumsfeld’ face.
I definitely did hear a thaater CIA head (South American during Guatemoal time) say that We do what we like and they can lump it. Only he was more snotty. He’s probably making his millions as a CIA contractor now.
Again Absolute power corrups absolutely.
I would like to see a published data base that shows how many people were killed or murdered or assinated under each President.
The only way we will get back to our position in the world is for the US people to stop the madness. In order to do that they must be confronted with the facts in an in your face manner.
Second we need the international court to have criteria for and post “Wanted for Prosecution” notices and list names.
Third the Nobel Committee in an unprecedented action should remove the prize award given to Obama for Peace.
Public opinion is the only remedy. Force will not do it. Silence will not do it.
Sporatic expose’s will not do it. Major worldwide public opinion will.
US drone attacks in Pakistan: UN backs probe into civilian casualties
By AFP
Published: June 7, 2012
http://tribune.com.pk/story/390225/us-drone-attacks-in-pakistan-un-backs-probe-into-civilian-casualties/
Excerpt:
ISLAMABAD: The UN human rights chief on Thursday called for a UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan, questioning their legality and saying they kill innocent civilians.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay made the remarks at the end of a four-day visit to the country, where US drone strikes have on average targeted militants once every four days under US President Barack Obama.
Islamabad is understood to have approved the strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in the past. But the government has become increasingly energetic in its public opposition as relations with Washington have nosedived.
“Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law,” Pillay told a news conference in Islamabad.
“The principle of distinction and proportionality and ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command and beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control,” she said.
She said the attacks violate human rights.
“I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations.”
The UN human rights chief provided no statistics but called for an investigation into civilian casualties, which she said were difficult to track.
“Because these attacks are indiscriminate it is very, very difficult to track the numbers of people who have been killed,” she said.
“I suggested to the government that they invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions and he will be able to investigate some of the incidents.”
She said UN chief Ban Ki-moon had urged states to be “more transparent” about circumstances in which drones are used and take necessary precautions to ensure that the attacks involving drones comply with applicable international law.
“So therefore I stress the importance of investigating such cases and ensuring compensation and redress to the victims.”
Washington releases few details about its covert drone programme in Pakistan but on Wednesday US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described them as self-defence and promised that they would continue to target al Qaeda in Pakistan.
The testimony of Bob Graham in several lawsuits against The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia says that The Kingdom financed 79% (15 of 19) of the 9/11 hijackers. Iraq financed 0%, which leaves Afghanistan with a maximum involvement of 21%.
We have done the most devastation to the nation that did 0%, the second most destruction to the nation that did 21%, and NONE to the nation that did 79%.
That supports a general and an economist who say that is because a coup took place that changed our nation forever.
————————–
How long Dredd, do you think, before that truth can be voiced in the public square and recognized as truth by the public?
After all, a problem unrecognized can never be dealt with let alone solved. Who is benefitting by this current state of affairs?
mespo:
In my view your arguments in support of the drone attacks have a number of flaws, including the following:
1. Justification by resort to “reality” constitutes a de facto denial that moral principles should have a role in evaluating government action. I strongly reject the Machiavellian notion that states are not moral actors.
2. The suggestion that drone warfare is justified by the fact that we have suffered no attacks on our soil in ten years assumes a causal relationship which is unproven and intuitively questionable.
3. You completely ignore the concept of proportionality. Am I justified in killing 15 civilians in order to kill 1 terrorist? How about a ratio of 10-1, or 5-1?
4. Your definition of “sovereignty” is sufficiently liquid to permit Mexico to invade U.S. border towns in hot pursuit of drug smugglers or, for that matter, to use drones to strike American citizens known to be engaged in drug trafficking.
The essence of your argument is that power provides legitimacy. History is littered with the victims of that doctrine.
mespo727272 1, June 7, 2012 at 10:49 am
Woosty:
“Mespo, how monstrous do YOU think the attacks were?”
************************
To kill 3000 innocent civilians out of some notion of spreading jihad is about as monstrous as it gets. Don’t you agree?
=========================================
And that brings up equity, as well as balanced, well-placed justice.
The testimony of Bob Graham in several lawsuits against The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia says that The Kingdom financed 79% (15 of 19) of the 9/11 hijackers. Iraq financed 0%, which leaves Afghanistan with a maximum involvement of 21%.
We have done the most devastation to the nation that did 0%, the second most destruction to the nation that did 21%, and NONE to the nation that did 79%.
That supports a general and an economist who say that is because a coup took place that changed our nation forever.
Bob,
I still love you even when you get cranky with me.
Gene H. 1, June 7, 2012 at 8:32 am
At this point, the Executive should just stop pretending and go back to the natty Hugo Boss uniforms the Bush family friends preferred in WWII.
They are at least leaving no doubt that PNAC and AEI are dictating American foreign policy no matter which party has the current illusion of holding the White House and/or Congress.
=======================
Well said indeed.
Oh, my bad. I’m supposed to qualify that as “in all his arguments with me” so as to avoid even the appearance of a fallacy of composition.
Wootsy,
I may be a dog person, German Shepherds particularly, but this re post is for you and for everyone else that’s tired of the shameless fear mongering as well.
Bob, Esq. 1, June 5, 2012 at 9:26 am
Gene,
When I make a comment like “people like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention” it’s only because I’ve witnessed it first hand in my arguments with him.
The man has absolutely no regard for the doctrine of specifically enumerated powers and bases his arguments for the exercise of power not granted by the constitution solely on his intentions of the end justifying the means. He’ll have you believe that the survival of the nation is perpetually in question and will quote you Lincoln in the context of the Civil War to justify dismantling the constitution to achieve his aims.
Look at his arguments regarding the executive’s overreaching of power in the name of a war on “terror.” Look at the way he juices his rhetoric with fear and the remembrance of fear, i.e. invoking 9/11, as justification for decimating civil liberties. About the only thing missing from his arguments is the “Smoking Gun/In The Form of a Mushroom Cloud” metaphor used by the Bush Administration to defraud the country into war.
…
In his unfettered support of policies that attack our civil liberties, Mark has consistently demonstrated that he does not believe in freedom or the rule of law. He believes first and foremost in assuaging his own anxieties and insecurities; he believes in total control.
pbh 1, April 28, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“I never said Mespo does not have a right to speak on the subject of 9/11, I said that I “detested” what he had to say. That is me exercising my free speech in response to his.
And, I further gave my reason, which I will reiterate, that I believe he was making an unjustifiable and ultimately crass appeal to emotion in order to advance his argument for suspending civil rights.”
feemeister 1, June 7, 2012 at 7:44 am
…
I’m still trying to figure out what happened to this country that has made us this way, and why the people can’t have this stopped. Because you can bet the whole world will be believing that we the people would stop it if we wanted to.
===============================
Two public figures whom you know say There Was A Coup you know when.