What do you want me to say? The piece you link to doesn’t say who was targeted, why they were targeted, or what possibly went wrong. And even if everything is as the witnesses say it is, this doesn’t make it an execution. You don’t execute random people. At worst, this was a horrible case of collateral damage from a strike gone wrong, unless you believe innocent civilians were intentionally targeted.
On the other hand, if you agree that the bin Laden killing was justified, or not an execution, you have acknowledged that these sorts of killings and/or drone strikes are not executions per se, and that there may be legitimate reasons to engage in them. As I’ve said multiple times, this doesn’t mean that the drone program is perfect, or that you have to think they’re a good idea in general. It simply means that this is a complex issue with legitimate points on either side of the debate.
[quote=“chenille, post:31, topic:21215”]
Would you please at least consider what bloodshed you country is perpretating before you brush it all away as justified, because countries get to defend themselves, and somehow that now means making pre-emptive strikes against anyone anywhere with no oversight.
Because you know, that’s what a lot of the terrorists have been doing, too; attacking a country they personally decided is a threat.[/quote]
Terrorists do not have military objectives. They do not target military actors. They deliberately target innocent populations in order to sow terror. Even if one somehow believes that preemptive strikes can be leveled against “against anyone anywhere with no oversight,” this is not what the strikes actually do: they target specific actors believed to be terrorists. There may be a lack of transparency, but I don’t think there’s a lack of oversight.
I’m also not a US citizen—not that I think this is particularly relevant—and I’m not aware that my country has perpetuated this bloodshed.
Oh. So I don’t get a pass, but others should get a pass when they say this is nothing more than execution in the absence of due process, without facing what that really means? Because I don’t think you’re really objecting to the terminology, you’re objecting to actually unpacking it and examining the meaning. You want to use emotionally-charged language without having to acknowledge the meaning that gives it that emotional value.
But I would actually be interested in hearing what you think the appropriate response to terrorist groups in Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, or wherever is. Should a certain level of terrorism simply be accepted? Should efforts at combating terrorism simply stop at the border? What sort of government response would you give a pass to? Should bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan have simply been ignored? Or if you agree with the killing of bin Laden, how do you reconcile that with your views that people have rights, that he wasn’t in a demarcated battlefield, and that this appears to have been a strike with no public oversight?
