Perhaps the discussion of spy and predator drones is about to begin. An administration white paper has reached reporters, and that paper provides a starting point. I believe it is clear that the 50 nations that employ drones should meet and set international standards for their use. At the moment drone warfare seems to be a free-for-all.
I also believe we should leave the Middle East to evolve at its own pace and solve its own cultural problems. Nevertheless. . . . At the moment there are enemies out there determined to murder my granddaughter. I want her protected.
According to Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, the administration paper "summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority--the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact." Shamsi's statement raises some questions. None of this is simple.
Are we concerned with drones killing human beings in general or merely the rare killing of Americans? How do these killings compare to the killings of young black men without trial by the police every day in this country? What is a "recognized battlefield" in a guerrilla war? When an American joined the enemy in past wars, the Civil War or World War II, were they granted counsel and trials before we shot at them or bombed them?
Are we in a war with al Qaida? Wars have been defined as armed conflicts between two nations. Is this a new kind of war with new rules? If so, what are the rules?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment