More on Licensed to Kill

Townhall.com ^ | July 18, 2015 | John C. Goodman

[Kaslin]

In the old days, before we went to war, Congress had to declare one. In the old days you couldn’t kill an enemy combatant unless we were in a declared war. In the old days, an enemy combatant was someone wearing a uniform on a field of battle.

How times have changed. As I wrote last week, President Obama, sitting in the White House, can authorize the killing of people who are not in uniform, are not armed and are nowhere near a field of battle. The people killed may never have harmed an American. They may have no intent to ever harm us. They are targeted because they have a connection to other people we don’t like. Or maybe they don’t. According to Jo Becker and Scott Shane at The New York Times, the White House "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants." So if a young man is standing next to a target, the young man is viewed as a target as well.

Conducting remote control warfare with the use of drones, far away from any combat zone is a practice that didn’t start under Barack Obama. But he has carried it out to an extent that goes far beyond anything ever seen before. In the president’s first five years in office, the C.I.A. made 330 drone strikes in Pakistan alone, compared with 51 strikes in four years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

Assuming the target of a drone strike deserved to die, how many untargeted people have been killed just because they happened to be somewhere near him? The C.I.A., in classified submissions to Congress, claims civilian death rates are “typically in the single digits.” Independent estimates differ with that. Pratap Chatterjee, writing in The New York Times reports that:

In 646 probable drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as many as 1,128 civilians, including 225 children, were killed — 22 percent of deaths. The New America Foundation’s estimates are lower, but suggest a civilian death rate of about 10 percent.

So how does this affect the guys sitting back in places like the Nevada desert, well out of harm’s way – the guys who “pull the trigger” so to speak? Chatterjee writes:

The Air Force is providing psychological support for drone personnel, but this interim solution seems unlikely to be adequate.

“We can say we see children and we think you shouldn’t do it. But it isn’t up to us,” one former analyst, who asked to remain anonymous, told me. “We are completely outranked, and at the very bottom of the food chain.”

One particularly troubling practice is the “double tap” drone strike – the practice of deliberately attacking civilians rescuing the wounded, or the wounded themselves. Dylan Matthews, writing at Vox, reports:

In 2012 the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the Obama administration had killed at least 50 civilians in the course of double tap strikes up to that point. That doesn't include the more than 20 deaths at drone strikes that hit funerals and mourners.

Here is another troubling fact: We sometimes target people with drones whose identities we don't even know:

A signature strike, the Washington Post's Greg Miller explains, "hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives," rather than upon intelligence about a specific person's involvement in al-Qaeda, and intelligence about their location.

We have apparently killed at least four US citizens in drone strikes.

One thing to keep in mind: Drone technology will quickly make its way around the world. How would we react if Russia or China used a drone to kill someone on US soil? I’m sure we wouldn’t like it. But what kind of precedent have we set – for every other country to follow?

[VTenigma]

Is it any wonder why the U.A. is hated in many parts of the world?

[VTenigma]

U.A? oh well U.S.

[Smokin' Joe]

One particularly troubling practice is the “double tap” drone strike – the practice of deliberately attacking civilians rescuing the wounded, or the wounded themselves. Dylan Matthews, writing at Vox, reports...

Maybe the operators should have some required reading on terrorist tactics.

Like the Embassy bombings in '98 in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The terrorists set a small bomb to draw attention and get the people working nearby to the windows. After a short delay, a much larger vehicle bomb went off, killing first responders and shattering nearby windows and shredding those gathered there to see what was going on.

Both bombings on the same day followed the same M.O.

The death of civilians (noncombatants) is regrettable, but someone supports the military and terrorist organizations in the area.

War is hell, especially for the civilian population.

I am glad, however, that there are some moral issues for the drone operators. If they were completely devoid of any feelings on the issue of collateral damage, I would be even more concerned.

[Smokin' Joe]

All that said, I think the strikes should be reserved for high priority targets and materiel.

[Sherman Logan]

In the old days, before we went to war, Congress had to declare one. In the old days you couldn’t kill an enemy combatant unless we were in a declared war. In the old days, an enemy combatant was someone wearing a uniform on a field of battle.

Comprehensively untrue.

We fought a naval Quasi War with France under Washington. No Declaration of War. Much of the fighting on both sides was by privateers. No uniforms.

We fought the Barbary pirates, twice, most of whom wore no uniforms. No Declaration.

We fought literally hundreds of wars and military actions against Indians. No uniforms or Declaration. These wars, BTW, are the closest analogy to the War on Terror.

We fought a long bloody war to conquer the Phillipines. No Declaration. Not sure whether any of the Filipinos had uniforms. We also fought a war against the Moros. No uniforms or Declaration.

We invaded and occupied several Latin American and Caribbean countries. No Declaration. Most of our opponents did not wear uniforms.

There was no formal Declaration for the Korean, Vietnam or either of the two Gulf Wars.

We've fought well over a hundred wars, depending on how you define the term, and I think we've only formally declared war six times: Revolution, 1812, Mexican, Spanish, WWI, WWII.

Possibly we should declare war formally before engaging in it. But history just doesn't support the view that this has been our norm.

[Sherman Logan]

We have apparently killed at least four US citizens in drone strikes.

Somebody show me the clause of the Constitution that prescribes American citizens overseas who are waging war on the US be treated differently from any other enemy combatant.

We can have a discussion about whether these strikes should be taking place at all, but not, IMO, that American citizens should have immunity simply because of their citizenship status.

Serving in the armed forces of a country engaged in war with the US or committing treason by waging war against the US or providing aid and comfort to its enemies results in citizenship by definition being relinquished.

Thus "American citizens" engaged in such activities were arguably no longer citizens at all. A hearing does not revoke the citizenship, it merely recognizes the existing state of it having been voluntarily relinquished by the traitor's actions.

[Bishop_Malachi]

The problem is that many of these areas are not industrialized, so there is no war materials (other than obvious recruits) that can be provided. Unless one plans to exterminate the entire male population (Mongol style), then this indiscriminate activity will create Jihadists until Judgement Day.

[Smokin' Joe]

Unless one plans to exterminate the entire male population (Mongol style), then this indiscriminate activity will create Jihadists until Judgement Day.

All that is required to continue a blood feud is a killing, agreed.

This is why the strikes should be limited to known high-priority targets. While that includes leadership, the Hydra comes to mind.

[Vaduz]

Wonder what the friends of Clintons death rate would be if they had drones?.

[Kaslin]

We fought a naval Quasi War with France under Washington. No Declaration of War. Much of the fighting on both sides was by privateers. No uniforms.

Actually that was during the presidency of John Adams, not George Washington. Source

There was no formal Declaration for the Korean, Vietnam or either of the two Gulf Wars

I really don't know why you are bringing the Korean, Vietnam or the Golf wars up? Everyone knows that World WarII was the last war that was declared.

Re: The Golf wars. If you recall Kuwait had asked the US to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait after Saddam Hussein had invaded the oil rich nation, and on the second Golf war: President Bush went before the Congress and asked permission to go to war against Saddam. While Congress did not declare war against Saddam it did give permission to send our troops there

[JimRed]

How times have changed. As I wrote last week, President Obama, sitting in the White House, can authorize the killing of people who are not in uniform, are not armed and are nowhere near a field of battle.

And he can further "authorize" the killing of our own people in uniform on our own soil, by denying them the right and wherewithal to defend themselves.

[Sherman Logan]

You are correct about the Quasi War.

Arguably the congressional authorization to use force against terrorists provided to Bush is still in effect for Obama.

Personally I believe a congressional authorization to use force, as was obtained for the Quasi War, for Vietnam, and for both Gulf Wars, is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war. And such an authorization was provided for the War on Terror.

Now one could argue, and I think somewhat accurately, that this authorization was over-broad. I think such authorizations should be for a period of time and require re-authorization.