The Independent Institute En Espanol The Independent Institute
div1 div2 div3
div div

So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?

Among the many cock-and-bull stories set afoot by the Bush administration during the leadup to its attack on Iraq was the one about the now-infamous drones of death. Later, it became sufficiently clear that this alleged threat had no more substance than the others the administration and the lapdog mainstream media had served up to a credulous public.

Although the ludicrously primitive Iraqi drones had no capacity whatsoever to harm the American public, the lethality of U.S. drones is another matter. Predator drones equipped with Hellfire missiles now provide the U.S. government with a means of flying over territory that U.S. ground troops dare not penetrate, observing activities on the ground, and killing people there with, shall we say, a minimum of due process.

In November 2002, for example, BBC News reported: “America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six suspected members of Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, according to US officials. The men died when the jeep they were travelling in was hit by a missile fired from an unmanned CIA plane—believed to be a Predator drone, the US sources said.”

U.S. forces have also used the Predator actively in Afghanistan and, most recently, in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Today, I read an account of a drone attack near the town of Miramshah in North Waziristan that is reported to have “killed at least 14 people and injured 12 others,” including “at least six women and children.”

In Afghanistan, such aerial attacks, not always by drones, of course, have created a ticklish dilemma for the Karzai government as it pretends to be a real government, rather than the U.S. puppet it actually is. Official protests have become increasingly vociferous, though I have seen no evidence that the U.S. forces intend to change their operations in response.

What an awesome power the president and, with his authorization, his subordinate officers possess: they can kill people at will, including those persons’ wives and children, with no risk whatever of receiving return fire or other retribution. Surely this is the long-sought culmination of the Republican’s quest to establish “law and order.”

What leads me to remark on this matter, however, is not its technological nuts and bolts or its connection with master-puppet relations in southwest Asia, but rather the complete insouciance with which the American public greets reports of deaths by drone. I do not exaggerate if I say that the general reaction is “ho-hum.” Well, the average American says, that disposes nicely of another “bad guy.” The gratuitous murder of the bad guy’s family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the vicinity appears to create no blip on the average American’s moral radar screen. Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis to be real human beings whose right to life we are obliged to respect?

Is death by drone simply another occasion when the president, having labeled a set of actions as a “war,” believes and acts as if he has carte blanche to dish out death and destruction willy nilly?

Of course, reports of drone attacks usually refer to militants, Taliban forces, or al Qaeda members. To this information, we might well respond: yeah, who says? If we are content to assume that U.S. intelligence agents, who nearly always get their information from collaborators in the target territories, really know whom they are targeting, then we are certainly easily satisfied. One does not have to make an extensive survey of U.S. government claims about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places in southwest Asia over the past seven years to see that for the most part the U.S. commanders, from the Commander in Chief on down to the sweatiest noncom on patrol, are either more or less clueless or the biggest liars on the planet. I do not rule out that they are both.

The upshot is that the people who cooperate in getting to the point at which someone pushes the button to send the Hellfire toward its selected target may in fact not know for sure whom they are about the kill, or how many others will be killed along with this ostensible “enemy” or who those others are.

Without launching into a massive  geopolitical inquiry, we might well pause from time to time to ask, What are U.S. forces doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan anyhow? Surely they are not there to capture or kill the persons responsible for the crimes of 9/11, because they have already proved beyond all doubt that they are incapable of doing so (as Osama bin Laden’s videos periodically remind us). They are, however, all too capable of diverting their energies from that objective toward unrelated goals, such as attacking and occupying Iraq.

We Americans find ourselves, then, observing with extreme moral disengagement as the president and his subordinates murder persons whose identities remain uncertain along with assorted others whose only crime is being in the same area as the targeted individuals—after all, the Hellfire, which makes a very big blast, can scarcely be described as a surgically precise killing instrument.

Moreover, the president’s use of this remote-control-execution device apparently has no geographical limits, because, as he assures us, the “war on terror” has none. Today, a dirt road in Waziristan; tomorrow, the Santa Monica Freeway.  It will be interesting to see, when drone attacks are carried out in this country, whether the American public gives a damn.

7 Comment(s)

  1. “Is death by drone simply another occasion when the president’s having labeled a set of actions as a “war” establishes his moral authority to dish out death and destruction willy nilly?”

    Why, yes. Yes it is. There is a point where you become numb or else you go insane.

    Puck Smith | Sep 12, 2008 | Reply

  2. Please, can someone assist me; I’m looking for a report of the Independent Institute where it was estimated that America’s total overseas empire costs $1 trillion per year. It was cited by presidential candidate Ron Paul I think.

    Pablo Escobar | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply

  3. I don’t quite get it: Your complaint is that UCAVs allow the military to kill with too little moral engagement? Tell me at what point the military chain of command is sufficiently engaged to assuage your concern:

    1. A UCAV fires a guided missile.
    2. A ground battery fires a beyond-visual-range guided missile.
    3. A manned vehicle fires a guided missile.
    4. A manned vehicle fires an unguided missile.
    5. A manned vehicle fires non-explosive projectiles.
    6. A dismounted soldier fires an explosive projectile.
    7. A soldier fires non-explosive projectiles.
    8. A soldier employees an non-projectile lethal weapon.
    9. A soldier kills a designated individual without the aid of weapons.
    10. The officer who approves the target kills the target.

    Or is your complaint really not about “death drones” at all?

    Federalist | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply

  4. The complaint dear “Federalist”, is that the President is simply executing those who desires to be dead without presenting any evidence that he had legitimate reason to. If al-Quaeda kills someone and claims that person was attacking what they hold dear do we believe them? Then why should we believe the President?

    Michael Price | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply

  5. That’s a valid concern, but nobody has presented a practical alternative to our current system. (See my related question.)

    Given that we know there are suicidal militants around the world actively conspiring to kill Americans, what rules of engagement do we impose on the government Constitutionally mandated to defend us against such threats?

    During conventional wars it’s easy: The executive branch has free license to kill uniformed combatants and destroy enemy military infrastructure.

    Now that we face an unconventional enemy do you propose that we hamstring the executive? To what degree, and why do you believe it is valid to put Americans in greater danger as a result?

    Federalist | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply

  6. The Al Qaeda hide themselves among women and children except when it suits them. The U.S. solders are thousands of miles from home, in harms’ way and are killed with regularity. I know U.S. soldiers most are careful not to endanger the innocent needlessly. However if the Al Qaeda hide we must get them wherever they are so long as they pursue their villainous agenda.
    I don’t see anything wrong with drones operating as reported. But understand these drones are nearly 20 years old. The next generations are smaller but carry much more firepower, are able to hover and use active camouflage that make them virtually undetectable from as low as 100ft up. IE they don’t cast a detectable shadow in full daylight.
    And very, very soon terrestrial units will be deployed that can be dropped off hundreds of miles away and are able to find their targets with extreme stealth. Even if they are, they aren’t easily damaged, have a “defense program” that is better termed “annihilation” or can move three times as quickly the fastest human, or can virtually disappear before your eyes, yeah things are getting bad…

    Steve | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

  7. The American public only gets upset when American soldiers are killed in large numbers, as in Vietnam. The Military and Politicians know this. So, inflicting casualties on supposed ‘bad guys’ from the comfort of a small room on a Nevada air base without risking a single, American life is clearly the best way to go, even if the bad guy turns out to be a taxi driver or the groom and bride at a wedding. Let’s face it, they’re foreigners and, consequently, the average American in the street could care less about them.

    Warfare has now become eminently ‘doable’ and with little immediate cost to the doer. God Bless America: humanity’s last, best hope. Sigh!

    Trisha | Oct 8, 2008 | Reply

1 Trackback(s)

  1. Sep 26, 2008: from So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right? « Anti-war Libertarian

Post a Comment