By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
~John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. III, (kudos to Bron)
On the night of February 13th, 773 RAF Avro Lancaster bombers swept in low and fast on the Saxony railway town of Dresden. It was early 1945, The Third Reich was collapsing and some 600,000 people had taken refuge in the city to avoid the Allied onslaught. The presumed target was the military complex on the outskirts of town known as the Albertstadt. Dresden, itself, was riddled with military garrisons intermingled among the civilian population. In two waves, the RAF dropped 650,000 incendiaries and 8,000 lbs of high explosives and hundreds of 4,000 pounds bombs on the city center, all with little to no resistance. The entire city was ablaze. RAF crews reported smoke rising to a height of 15,000 ft. Fires were seen 500 miles away from the target.
The next day, February 14, 1945, as Dresden was trying to cope with the crisis, 450 U.S. B-17 Flying Fortress long-range bombers assigned to the 1st Bombardment Division of the United States VIII Bomber Command arrived at 1230 local time. Guided by the fires, they discharged 771 tons of bombs.
The results on the ground were horrific with an estimated 25,000 killed. Survivor Lothar Metzger recalled:
We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.
I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them.
Some estimates bring the number of those killed to 100,000. Nazi propagandists took the figure to 200,000. RAF recon noted that ” 23 percent of the industrial buildings, and 56 percent of the non-industrial buildings, not counting residential buildings, had been seriously damaged. Around 78,000 dwellings had been completely destroyed; 27,700 were uninhabitable, and 64,500 damaged, but readily repairable.”
The raid, ordered by Churchill, rendered such a blow to Western psyche that he distanced himself from the raid saying, “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so-called ‘area-bombing’ of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy’s war effort.” Of mention, is no sense of the human cost to the enemy of the raid. Th emphasis seems to be purely egocentric: What kind of country will we have when this is all over?
However British Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris was not so circumspect:
“Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.”
“War is hell” seems to claim the Air Marshall, and strategic concerns take precedence over humanitarian ones in a war zone. Is he right, or are both he and Churchill “war criminals” to quote some of the more animated commentary on the blog? Neither were prosecuted or charged with war crimes for the Dresden raid.
Which brings us to David Drumm’s fine posting yesterday about a claim of double-tapping Drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere in support of the war against the terrorists. The evidence published by the 18-month-old Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) claims that 6 instances of double-tapping have occurred with rescuers being targeted with second strikes. A review of 5 of those sources (ABC’s article was not easily retrievable) reveals that one arguably involved an attack on civilians, one was unclear on the status of the rescuers, and three reported second attacks on militants and extremists.
In response to my query on this point, David correctly pointed out that the Obama Administration does consider fighting age men in the strike zone “militants.” That fact was disclosed in a long New York Times article:
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
But does six instances of secondary attacks obscured by the fog of war prove that the US has a policy of targeting innocent rescuers? Can it even be said that we are indifferent to the humanitarian concerns of rescuers even as we attack our enemies on their home turf?
From a legal perspective, targeting killing of persons who present an imminent threat to a country is permissible. Obama himself has insisted on such evidence before authorizing the strikes though there are trade-offs, according to the New York Times. The CIA’s man in the White House, John Brennan, a crusty Irishman who has spoken in defense of civil liberties and to close Guantanamo but who has faced withering criticism for his role in post 9/11 interrogations, explains Obama’s analysis:
The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons’ lives. It is the option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don’t like the fact that people have to die. And so he wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base, the imminence of the threat, all of these things.
Assassination of persons is generally regarded as murder although, by executive order, the US President may order the killing of foreign leaders who represent an imminent threat to the US.
Former U.S. District Judge (S.D. NY) Abraham Sofaer explains the difference:
When people call a targeted killing an “assassination,” they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States…. U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests…. But killings in self-defense are no more “assassinations” in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.
Likewise, Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser US Department of State, defends the use of drones as ” part of “responsibility of US to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks.”
But what then about rescuers killed trying to aid militants?
Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, author The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, and no friend of the US drone policy concedes that “Legal guilt does not always accompany innocent death.” In an example, published by Harper’s Magazine, Solis comments on a US helicopter attack on civilians rendering aid to combatants. “Can a van picking up wounded victims be fired upon? If the helicopter personnel reasonably associated the unmarked van with the presumed enemy personnel, yes. An “enemy” vehicle without red cross, red crescent, or white flag receives no special protection, even if wounded personnel are on board.”
Thus, even critics of the drone program conclude that trying to render humanitarian aid to injured militants affords no protection unless they are clearly visible as such. There is nothing in any of the articles cited by the BIJ indicating that rescuers were so denominated.
What then to make of the double-tap policy and the humanitarian toll. I see no proof that US drone masters are “targeting civilians.” Targeting implies intention and given the Administration’s definition of militants in a strike area it is unlikely that there is the intention to harm civilians rescuers where proof of such status exists. The Administration argues that its definition is based on its decade long experience with al-Qaeda. One certainly can argue with the definition of “militant” given its breadth, but does this definition make us any more culpable that acknowledged WWII heroes Winston Churchill or Air Chief Marshall Harris in arguing that our prime responsibility in war is to deny the enemy the ability to wage war against us even as civilians are maimed or killed?
What do you think?
Sources: linked throughout
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Talkingback and CLH,
Just to intrude a moment. Like both your ideas. Glad to see them.
Just want to be sure that while the muslims treatment of women is pretty primitive (tribalistic
paternalism), but so are other societies and religions, including all our own sects. Jews deny women in the same floor of the synagogue at least I think so, and they can’t be cantors, RCC and its taboo on women priests, priestly chastity, and the diverse persecutions women have endured in America, capped off recently by ALEC bills all over the place.
Kind of makes the muslim saying women are for reproduction seem almost healthy by comparison. Of course one can ask: Are muslim women allowed to use contraceptives? No idea.
And the lady who said that the Shia hate the Sunnis because the Sunni leave it open for a new prophet, she must be kidding. One branch of Shia is awaiting the return of the last Imam. Could I or she be confused?
Must I cast negative shit on those I like. Yes, I am still 5 years old.
Do we think that any “establishment” is interested in any public message that Obama delivers. I should think they want much more concrete evidence than that.
If he came out with a public declaration of war, it would still be the document that was the cincher. Or?
“Key Quote: I think the media really should dig into what is driving Obama’s war on whistleblowers. Is it that he wants to curry favor with the national security and intelligence establishment, which found him to be weak going into office?” (anonymously)
What a thoroughly interesting question. I’m going to watch the link you provided later this evening. Thanks
“Muslims and ALL people deserve to have their beliefs understood from their own perspective, not spun through western demands of what is suitable & what is not.” (talkingbacktocspan)
With you up to one point. I reserve every right to judge what is suitable and what is not when it comes to a few things. Like how they treat women. Well, especially how they treat women.
id707,
“Oh well, it’s between friends.” … ya got that right! 😉
To all avatar commentors:
I know it’s not the best picture but it did not transfer well to the gravatar site. There are mounds of snow around the tree and snow piled up on other branches outside the frame the gravatar site selected. Place the lone cardinal on that branch and it’s a surprisingly restful pic.
I’ll go through some of my other winter pics to see if I can find a better one.
“Muslims and ALL people deserve to have their beliefs understood from their own perspective, not spun through western demands of what is suitable & what is not.” (talkingbacktocspan)
You’ll get no argument from me on that point especially “understood from their own perspective”.
Mesposer: “I give you dodge #2 – not dealing with Kant on his own terms. Kant says we can only have peace in the presence of law (i.e. rationality) else-wise we may regard the one rejecting rationality as an enemy. Kant argues for an overarching international structure to enforce the peace. How’s that square with your sovereignty arguments. Seems Kant agrees with Hobbes, Cicero — and, God forbid it — me on the nature of man and the “morality” one must show an irrational enemy.”
Wow; such audacity. You have no idea what Kant argues for because you exhibit no evidence that you ever read or comprehended what he had to say. And no, there is no need for me to take the bait and disprove every little lie you set forth above.
One need only compare your comments to Gene, Mike Appleton, Blouise and even Nal’s quick comment on the importance of morality. In fact any poster here who contradicted your call to disregard law and morality, even if they haven’t read Kant, exhibit a far greater understanding of Kant’s philosophy than you.
You, on the other hand, faking your way through Kant, come off as sounding like Sarah Palin describing the ride of Paul Revere
Mesposer: “…he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.”
Mespo,
We are in a situation we should have never gotten into…..but since we are in it…..we must do what is necessary to save face…..the British Rules of engagement didn’t work out so well here…
DonS and others,
Gray Jay, you say. We have a species here, not at all uncommon, but not a bird to be found in the town.
Although have seen one on occasion. They also make the bobble-bobble sound.
It is characterized by food search in pairs on the ground, grey but with a conspicuous white fleck that is more visible when it flies away as it is on the
rump. Screechs occasionally, most raucously.
Feeds mainly in the autumn on acorns from the ground, will fill his craw and fly away to store them. Not shy.
In this way like a ring dove pair who will almost let you approach them, before wobbling away slowly.
Hope you had a good bike ride.
Many animals here in the wild are not afraid of us:
Baby squirrels, young whelp foxes, moose; but our deer are shy, except the males in rutting season when they are dangerously aggressive. They make a short bark like dogs. And will challenge you with barks when you’re walking. Just so you know.
DonS,
They (waxwings) pop up here for a very brief visit in February, eating the berries left by the other birds.
Seems like they are another subspecies here as their calls in the group sound like silver bells. Lovely.
Are they there over the summer? Maine seemed like SwM hinted. I only learnded the rhyme: “R” in season when R is in the month name for lobster and the like.
We all eat the imported farmed ones from Canada. Swedish ones cost USD 40 per pound, but they are wild catch.
Idealist, we could go on forever about our feathered friends, eh? But I’m off for a bike ride. The “missile” I referred to was simply how the diving/streaking bird appeared in the picture. And, for me, yes to the “bobble bobble” — great description — saw our first Gray Jay recently: uncommon, more solitary, and not nearly so noisy.
Blouise @ 12:35 pm —
With you almost all the way, but I get in trouble with my take on this notion:
“Only if we exchange our morality for that of the jihadist.”
1. Lumping people in categories is as offensive when applied to “jihadists” as to, say, Blacks.
2. I also hold no truck with the notion that, ‘there really are GOOD Muslims, don’t you know, and if only they’d come forward, tell our FBI about the baaaad Muslims, and otherwise endorse U.S. govt aggressions against Muslim countries all over the world,’ everything would be peachy.
In my view,
a. Muslims and ALL people deserve to have their beliefs understood from their own perspective, not spun through western demands of what is suitable & what is not. This is even more necessary since Islamic culture was a major cultural force that provided westerners with a great deal of what we now term the glories of western culture. Where would US computer know-how be without the Persian discovery of zero?
b. Jihadis — to the extent some Muslims may be intent on resisting Western aggressiveness — may be ‘waging holy war’ for very good reasons: the U.S. & allies are invading their lands, destroying their cultures, lives, values, etc.
All of that has to be understood before dismissing “jihadist morality” as somehow deficient.
Maybe we need more mirrors.
DonS,
I can understand your observation of bird flight.
But how did you get to observe missiles? Particularly rapid trajectory change.
For other bird lovers:
I’ve been watching the black coal thrush this year. He seems to be a characteristic one here, practically every useable green plot with trees or clinging ivy has one pair,
It starts with the single male calling after company in late February and marking his territory, doing so with another commanding style in May, and then seeking food for his brood, who can be heard chirping in a nearby tree. He only has at times a brief moment when he recalls less stressful days. Then the kids remind him and he start looking distraughtly for worms.
Saw exactly the last, walking by the churchyard this evening. In a very few weeks the young will be out of the nest and folowing on the search for food.
It is well to have these things to recall when the war crys get strident here.
Thank you Blouise. But not used to “sir” anymore, although it comes from when meeting older Americans here. And apologies for revealing my weakness again. So embarassing to do that. Oh well, it’s between friends.
And good evening to SwM too.
Need a new screen here or better eyes. Can’t see the cardinal, our state bird in NC. Used to keep me awake with his singing outside my bedroom window as a teenager in the hot summer nights. Anyone ever heard a bluejay say “bobble-bobble”? Not his usual screech.
Lobster’ great. Season ends in this sector next week.
DonS, Well now I know where I know where I need to spend my summers .I grew up in the midwest and never saw one until I moved to Texas. How’s the lobster or are you vegan?
“the cedar waxwings are long gone.” That’s because they’re here, SM 😉 Very orderly, well behaved, and group oriented. Admirable birds.
I like the other one better, too, Blouise.
Blouise,
I’m not saying I don’t like the cardinal picture, but I really liked the other one better. It had a bright and pleasing palette. However, I am not foolish enough to argue against a ladies prerogative in occasionally mixing it up with her attire. 😀
I see it, Blouise. I have plenty of cardinals a my feeders. They love sunflower seeds. My new summer birds are brown thrashers and hummingbirds, of course . Idealist, the cedar waxwings are long gone.