Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorge Will rationalized drone killings in his column today.
I caught Will's column in the RSS feed for my local newspaper's (usually progressive) editorial section. Predictably the column is called "A case for targeted killings":
President Franklin Roosevelt was truly astonished when told by a reporter that Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, had been shot down by U.S. planes over a Pacific island after Americans decrypted Yamamotos flight plans. FDR had encouraged this targeted killing destroying a particular person of military importance a phrase that has become familiar since Israel began doing this in 2000 in combating the second Palestinian intifada.
But was the downing of Yamamotos plane an assassination? If British commandos had succeeded in the plan to kill German Gen. Erwin Rommel in Libya in 1941, would that have been an assassination? If President Ronald Reagans 1986 attack on military and intelligence targets in Libya, including one that Moammar Gaddafi sometimes used as a residence, had killed him, would that have been an assassination? What about the November 2001 CIA drone attack on a Kabul meeting of high-level al-Qaeda leaders that missed Osama bin Laden but killed his military chief? An old executive order and a new technology give these questions urgent pertinence.
Executive Order 12333, issued by Reagan in 1981, extended one promulgated by Gerald Ford in 1976 in response to revelations about CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and affirmed by Jimmy Carter. Order 12333 says: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. What, then, of the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden? The new technology is the armed drone, which can loiter over the suspected location of an important enemy person and, in conjunction with satellite imagery, deliver precision-guided munitions in a matter of minutes.
Fortunately, John Yoo of Californias Berkeley School of Law has written a lucid guide to the legal and moral calculus of combating terrorism by targeting significant enemy individuals. In Assassination or Targeted Killings After 9/11 (New York Law School Law Review, 2011-12), Yoo correctly notes that precise attacks against individuals have many precedents and further the goals of the laws of war by eliminating the enemy and reducing harm to innocent civilians. And he clarifies the compelling logic of using drones for targeted killings attacking a specific person rather than a military unit or asset in todays undefined war with a limitless battlefield.
But was the downing of Yamamotos plane an assassination? If British commandos had succeeded in the plan to kill German Gen. Erwin Rommel in Libya in 1941, would that have been an assassination? If President Ronald Reagans 1986 attack on military and intelligence targets in Libya, including one that Moammar Gaddafi sometimes used as a residence, had killed him, would that have been an assassination? What about the November 2001 CIA drone attack on a Kabul meeting of high-level al-Qaeda leaders that missed Osama bin Laden but killed his military chief? An old executive order and a new technology give these questions urgent pertinence.
Executive Order 12333, issued by Reagan in 1981, extended one promulgated by Gerald Ford in 1976 in response to revelations about CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and affirmed by Jimmy Carter. Order 12333 says: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. What, then, of the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden? The new technology is the armed drone, which can loiter over the suspected location of an important enemy person and, in conjunction with satellite imagery, deliver precision-guided munitions in a matter of minutes.
Fortunately, John Yoo of Californias Berkeley School of Law has written a lucid guide to the legal and moral calculus of combating terrorism by targeting significant enemy individuals. In Assassination or Targeted Killings After 9/11 (New York Law School Law Review, 2011-12), Yoo correctly notes that precise attacks against individuals have many precedents and further the goals of the laws of war by eliminating the enemy and reducing harm to innocent civilians. And he clarifies the compelling logic of using drones for targeted killings attacking a specific person rather than a military unit or asset in todays undefined war with a limitless battlefield.
And Will is a panelist on ABC's This Week every Sunday morning???
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 820 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
George Will rationalized drone killings in his column today. (Original Post)
alp227
Dec 2012
OP
KG
(28,752 posts)1. the prez thinks they're hunky-dory also...
zbdent
(35,392 posts)2. I was wondering who told Will that it was OK for Repug lovers to say that the drone killings
were OK again ...
I thought it was just a RW talking point to make sure that the people were told that Obama "embraced" them ...