Comment Paper 5
Rich Russell
In the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in
Asymmetrical World Chapter 3 is written by Daniel Statman. The chapter
focuses on three Just War Theories which the idea of military ethics within the
scope of war and now terrorism. The three theories are Individualism,
Collectivism, and Constructualism. All three theories agree the war is not
necessarily immoral though they define “moral wars” differently. Individualism
states that the morality of defense in war is continuous with the morality of
individual self-defense. In the theory of Collectivism the key factor is
participation in war/terror by the subject at hand. Constructualism, primarily
developed by Yitzhak Benbaji, has the view that combatants have forfeited their
natural right to life while non-combatants may not be attacked with almost any
exceptions.
Having this
background Jeremy Waldron establishes his norm for targeting of civilians.
Civilians are worth of targeted killings if they are guilty of past terrorist
activities or they are involved in planning terrorist atrocities in the future.
With this criterion laid out it becomes an issue of ethics when discussing
American drone attacks against civilians in Pakistan and all over the world. If
one looks at the strikes from a non-nationalistic view, the killings in
Pakistan and the Middle East do constitute strikes of terror by the U.S.
government and specifically President Obama’s administration. I would go as far
as to say that non-combatants in those countries can and should hate us as the
US government is a perpetrator of terrorism. Jeremy Waldron’s first norm is
broken by every attack that kills a civilian who are not guilty of past
terrorism activity and are not planning terrorist activities in the future.
Even more frightening is the idea that there is no judiciary process for the
people who are killed. In essence our government is performing capital
punishment on people who may or not be terrorists. The killing of the US
citizen by drone attacks is even more egregious because of the lack of trial
which our justice system guarantees.
Though it is
damaging to our patriotic view of America as a beacon of liberty and justice in
the world, not recognizing that the US does not follow Just War Theories and
breaks norms for the targeting of civilians is one of the great weaknesses of
our democracy. Addressing these discrepancies is important in making America a
true protector of freedom and human rights worldwide.
Of course the problem that we (and ultimately Obama) has is that we can't really know for sure if someone is currently planning an attack. That said, this should not be a reason for expanding targeted killings to anyone who MIGHT plan an attack, it is just a reminder that such info is not really present.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is cause for concern that none of these people that we use drone strikes on get a trial by jury, but the books do raise a fair point saying that (in a time of war) no combatants really get a trial by jury. However, it can be difficult not to question if our criterion leads us to a severely disappointing rate at which civilians are accidentally targeted.
ReplyDeleteI understand that in times of war nobody gets tried by jury but after war people do and this is where it would get interesting. Drone operators are basically protected behind the walls of the United States and it would be almost impossible to hold the accountable for the casualties that they are responsible for.
DeleteI agree entirely that the trial by jury is such a murky issue that may not even have a clear cut answer.
ReplyDeleteAfter going through ninety percent of this class I still see no clear cut answers and defined solutions. The Obama administration has clearly sided on the pro-drone side and they have much evidence and support to choose that side. Them not choosing to take out someone could potentially cost American lives domestically and overseas. They have chosen to not take that chance which can both be commended and criminalized by people
I also think that much of the civilian casualties are not the targets of the strikes but rather collateral damage and casualties, so it seems this would almost fall under the conduct and care required of those in war. The U.S. is not targeting women and children, they are accidentally killing them while pursuing valid targets.
DeleteI also was uneasy with the idea of not having a trial by jury for those targeted by drone warfare, but (conceptually) I also find it difficult to eliminate serious threats that it would not be possible to capture and try any other way. It is difficult. On one hand, everyone deserves a trial, but on the other hand we do not try every single troop of the group we are going against in war.
ReplyDelete