I’m not saying that drone strikes are great or should be universally accepted or anything. I’m saying that the issues are more complex than simply saying Obama is executing people without due process. And I’m saying that if we accept that some of these killings are acceptable under some sort of quasi-war model, then given our historic understanding of war some collateral damage should be expected. Of course there are many contrary arguments, including that fact that drone surveillance should make it possible to target these individuals when they are alone. [quote=“chenille, post:27, topic:21215”]
But that’s why expanding war to mean any place the US feels it has a potential enemy, without need for any special declaration, review, or even deployment of troops, means essentially denying the possibility of such rights. For someone nitpicking the different forms of killing people, you’re sure being lax in what you allow as a war and battlefield.
[/quote]
I haven’t even addressed when/how a terrorist group and its membership should be considered/designated a valid military target, but I do think you’re right that that is a pretty important consideration. I haven’t said anything about whether the CIA or the military should be running these operations, either, and that’s also another important conversation. Obviously, if we are using a war model, then it makes sense to bring thing under military control; under CIA control the perspective is more in terms of terrorism prevention, which probably involves very different decision-making criteria and rules of engagement.
Obviously there’s going to be a lot of legitimate differences of opinion on these issues, but my main point here was to acknowledge that both sides of the debate have valid points. Going after terrorists doesn’t make you someone who executes without due process, and due process doesn’t require that the government wait until you commit a terrorist attack before arresting you and giving you a civilian trial.
