A Catholic perspective: America’s drone wars are not creating a safer world

[Capt Bringdown]

Catholic Herald UK:
Mark Shea says the Obama administration’s lawless drone campaign is claiming innocent lives

According to the American political journalist Glenn Greenwald: “In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism do ented that after the US kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals.” In other words, the drone war has led, not to accidental collateral damage, but to the wilful and indiscriminate murder of civilians – exactly the opposite of the “surgical approach” it is touted as.

A common (and perfectly sound) argument on the pro-life front for those who are unsure of whether an unborn baby is a person is that you would not fire a gun into a bush without checking to see whether it was a deer or another hunter. If in doubt, don’t shoot. The US policy of drone warfare is the opposite: we are in many cases shooting at people we know nothing about in the hope that some may be terrorists. And, as citizens, we Americans are handing over to an absolutely unaccountable executive the power to secretly order the death of anyone he chooses. Imagine, say, the Chinese using drones on American soil to target and kill suspected criminals or members of the Chinese mafia. Would Americans be satisfied with the explanation of the Chinese government if they said that somewhere between 500 to 1,000 innocent Americans killed were “acceptable losses” and “collateral damage”? Could there be a more efficient way for China to provoke war? A Briton may likewise wonder: “If the day came when America decided to blow up suspected terrorists in London by this method, would we tolerate it for five seconds?”

...with America dominated by a mindset that declares “the whole world is a battlefield” and which increasingly treats even its own citizens with su ion, no American or Briton should rule out the possibility that what is being done to Pakistanis today will be done to “suspected terrorists” on their soil tomorrow as the American security state continues its relentless pursuit of safety, no matter who it has to murder to get it.

- more ->

[DMC]

There's nothing new about executive power. If you think calling in an air strike is any better than using a UAV, you're wrong. Air strikes hit occupied buildings all the time. The real issue is that the enemy is part and parcel of the population. They come from and hide within the ranks of the civilian population, so they put their own people in danger, and seem to get a thrill from the deaths of their loved ones in a "martyrdom" sense.

If we weren't bombing the out of them, they'd be trying to find a way to bomb the out of us. It's really easy to sit in secure environments and about how the war is being waged, but you're safe.

[boutons_deux]

"they'd be trying to find a way to bomb the out of us"

nah, we spend $1.5T/year on Empire, we're cool.

If you were being invaded, murdered, and occupied across the planet, you'd fight back, too. or maybe not. Machos are mostly bluffers.

[DMC]

"they'd be trying to find a way to bomb the out of us"

nah, we spend $1.5T/year on Empire, we're cool.

If you were being invaded, murdered, and occupied across the planet, you'd fight back, too. or maybe not. Machos are mostly bluffers.

lol "fight back" against what, women and children and people who aren't remotely connected to the feds or the military? Bomb a theater or school? Yeah, sell that to someone else you got.