http://nationalinterest.org/blog/pau...on-manual-7992In one sense the Obama administration's reported creation of a “playbook” establishing rules for killing alleged terrorists helps to meet calls from outside commentators—this one included—to clarify the criteria that are being applied to such assassinations. Writing this kind of manual, however, has another side. It represents the ins utionalization of worldwide assassinations as a regular, ongoing business of the United States government. As such it raises larger questions, which the playbook might not address at all, of how an assassination program does or does not conform with the pursuit of U.S. national interests.
Ins utionalization of anything entails a bias toward its indefinite continuation, and maybe even its expansion. This tendency has often been discussed regarding other government programs, sometimes with a tie-in to what is outside government. The military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned, for example, represents a bias toward big defense expenditures and military operations to justify such expenditures. Likewise, it has often been remarked that creation of a bureaucracy to run domestic program X immediately creates a vested interest in favor of continuing and even expanding program X. Why should such tendencies not be just as likely to appear with an assassination program?
The Washington Post's story about the manual leads with the news not only that the manual is near completion but also that it will not be applied for a year or two to drone strikes in Pakistan. Thus what is considered short-term and exceptional is limited to what is going on now in Pakistan. By implication and contrast, all of the other worldwide assassinations cons ute something regular and long-term, and, so far as we know, limitless in both duration and geographic scope.
Lest we forget, it was not all that long ago that Americans and their presidents considered assassinations sufficiently contrary to American values that we should rule them out, as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan all did by executive order. What has changed since then to erase this determination? Oh, there's 9/11 of course, although the unraveling of the prohibition on assassinations actually began (with Osama bin Laden in particular in mind) a few years before 9/11. And even if it were all about 9/11, why should the fact that one bunch of terrorists hit a high-casualty jackpot be a reason for us to change our thinking on this subject in such an apparently fundamental way? Regarding morality, since this was originally a matter of consistency with American values, have our values really changed that much? Regarding legality, is there no limit to which that one resolution authorizing force that Congress passed in the emotional week after 9/11 be stretched in terms of either duration or geographic scope?
"Regarding morality"
nations' (and corporations) don't have morality, they have only self-preservation, interests, profits.
"matter of consistency with American values"
American values are all bull myths so the ignorant sheeple (oops, that's redundant) can flatter themselves with empty words. The Business of America is Business (not "values")
I have no problem with our president authorizing assassinations to non US citizens.
But I thought through the Church Hearings, they made a law against it.
as affirmed by the subsequent orders of many presidents, affirming its illegality and forswearing its use. I guess all that's considered quaint.But I thought through the Church Hearings, they made a law against it.
Did any of these guys actually follow their own orders?Lest we forget, it was not all that long ago that Americans and their presidents considered assassinations sufficiently contrary to American values that we should rule them out, as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan all did by executive order.
I'm pretty sure I can find examples of CIA involvement in assassination attempts during all three administrations.
there's a nontrivial difference imho between doing it covertly and having it be not only routine, but official policy . . .
this is essentially what Mogrovejo said. we've always done it covertly so what's the big deal?I'm pretty sure I can find examples of CIA involvement in assassination attempts during all three administrations.
I'm sure you can. this is essentially what Mogrovejo said. we've always done it covertly so what's the big deal?I'm pretty sure I can find examples of CIA involvement in assassination attempts during all three administrations.
the big deal is having targeted assassination as an official policy. not only will the power corrupt us, others will feel en led to it.
it makes us less secure, not more.
on US citizens? i'm all ears . . .I'm pretty sure I can find examples of CIA involvement in assassination attempts during all three administrations.
USA has been taking down govts for decades. eg: UK/US oilcos getting the CIA to take down Iran's Mossadegh, Nixon taking down Allende, St Ronnie beating up on tiny countries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
