Are the masters of "drone porn" committing war crimes by remote control? It's a bit shocking that more people aren't asking this question. I have a feeling that many of us, particularly liberal Obama supporters (like myself, for instance), haven't wanted to look too closely at what is being done in his name, in our name, when these remote-controlled and often tragically inaccurate weapons of small-group slaughter incinerate innocents from the sky, in what are essentially video-game massacres in which real people die.I suppose that if your circle of acquaintainces consists principally of "liberal Obama supporters" like you, then you could be excused, sort of, for supposing that "more people" aren't asking the question. Except, let's say that you are a journalist, and you are writing a story about these crimes, and after you begin by musing that "many of us" aren't asking about them, you write the following sentence:
-Ron Rosenbaum
These are the principles that have caused human rights organizations, U.N. officials, and the ACLU here to object to various aspects of the drone program.Wouldn't this gaggle of well-staffed, highly public, press-covered organizations fill the "more people" quota, indeed, perhaps even tip the scales into many people?
Well, look. I'm glad that an Obamamite is willing to consider that question, and yet I note a very interesting construction in that opening and above-excerpted paragraph: "what is being done in his name." The pronoun refers to the President, and I think we ought to be clear. The issue isn't that these criminal and murderous acts are being carried out in his name, but rather that they are being carried out by his orders. The problem isn't that he hovers symbolically, a great grinning blue suit, uttering promises about freedom, over the wholesale killing of civilians without cause or even decent pretext, but that he is the commissioner of the crimes. The question isn't whether or not the drone killings are crimes, but whether or not the President is a war criminal.
33 comments:
Does IOZ think Obama is really in charge? Isn't he just the spokesmodel?
Ah, no that was the chief of police of Malibu. A real reactionary.
soldiers are drones, too.
Mr. Fundie wins the thread already!
Freddy, Obama is the numinous Negro spokesman for pretty much every other bit of the Federal government. He cannot fire or even direct anyone in the government outside of the plum book. But he is actually in charge of the military. Tomorrow, if he had the will to, he could simply order the military to stop flying drones. (Or more likely, to stop attacks based on drone views of things on the ground.) They would. No other part of the government even has a say, much less could overrule the order. That is the nature of a functioning command hierarchy.
Dude, the correct nomenclature is Obamista.
Do we have to discuss Rosenbaum? High brow hack, sloppy thinker, etc. How many names did he drop in this column?
"but whether or not the President is a war criminal."
I don't think this is a question either.
This guy fucking walks. I've never been more certain of anything in my life!
Given that the killings aren't being conducted in the name of Barack Obama, imp. pres. esq.., but rather in the name of America and its people, isn't the question really whether *we* are war criminals?
Careful now Nony, "we" didn't order shit.
"No other part of the government even has a say, much less could overrule the order."
I suspect we will find out about this one in our lifetimes. But I would agree that drone attacks are not a line in the sand for the military brass.
"isn't the question really whether *we* are war criminals?"
Well, I didn't give the orders to bomb anyone, and I refused to vote in the drone-attack plebiscite on principle. So no.
I voted for the MQ-9 Reaper, but it promised to only kill the bad guys. beep boop!
when paying my federal taxes, (under threat of coercion,) i write on the check, not to be used in the commission of war crimes. if cashed, payee agrees to be bound by this contract. so, i plainly ain't no war criminal, 6:33.
On the pronoun thing actually it fits in a way because of the belief that forces are making Obama do things against his will. What’s its face was probably referring to that. While it is true there are forces that are working on him Obama does these things enthusiastically and willingly because he believes in all this exceptionalism shit. He loves it, he likes having the power of life and death over the rabble. He sought the power not the other way around.
Why say it's a question? It plainly isn't.
Unprovoked attacks on sovereign territories are kinda verboten, especially when no formal state of war exists. Right there is your war crime.
Of course the notion that there can be laws allowing for the correct kind of war does sort of make the concept of being a war criminal hard to swallow.
Well, this is OT, but Ms. Digs is perplexed as to where all this anti-Islamic hatred has welled up from. Her conclusion? It's solely because of the election of a black president. And in support of her conclusion, she quotes this bigot commenting on a website of some Tennessee newspaper: "Has every one forgotten the reason that we launched a war against Islam? It was for two reasons, number one was in defense of war being declared on us by Islam (defensive, not KKK) and the second reason was to root out the atrocities and inhumane actions of the Islam people," thereby undermining her own point.
Now, obviously these things are complicated, and I'm sure it sticks in the craw of many bigots that the current war-criminal-in-chief is of greater melanin and that helps stoke the "secret Muslim" silliness.
But posit this. Suppose we were engaged in various wars in India, Bali, and Nepal with different groups, some even officially secular, but it was routinely justified in the name of the dangers of "radical Hinduism" (with of course nods to such being a "perversion of a great religion"). And further suppose that some country, say Bangladesh, served as a key geopolitical bulwark of the United States yet was unfortunately engaged in an attempt to annex the primarily-Hindu state of Bengal, and resistance to this takeover was therefore denigrated in the US media as Hindu-motivated terrorism.
Well, I submit that we would probably witness attacks on Hindu temples and cab-drivers, etc. (the poor Sikhs would probably still continue to victimized by the same ignoramuses who currently can't distinguish between them and the
Mooosleems.)
I further submit that this would happen regardless of the melanin content of the President's skin.
Sorry, link: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/tennessee-burning-impulse-lives.html
If the drones killings are war crimes then obama is a war criminal becoz he ordered them.
Z
Careful now Nony, "we" didn't order shit.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What? 1969 ended?
-the real donny
Rojo, you dumb shitbird, her point was that it would have made much more sense to see this sort of thing, you know, back when people were constantly terrified that the Mooslims were going to fly drone planes over the lower 48 and give us the biggest poison-gas crop dusting you ever did see. When emotions were a lot more raw. When the wars were front page news. That sort of thing.
I know this is difficult for you fanboys to grasp, but just because IOZ attacks someone frequently, it doesn't follow that they are always wrong about absolutely everything.
her point was that it would have made much more sense to see this sort of thing, you know, back when people were constantly terrified that the Mooslims were going to fly drone planes over the lower 48 and give us the biggest poison-gas crop dusting you ever did see.
Then her point is still dumb. Who says bigotry has to arise from definite proximal causes?
(fanboys, lol)
You're out of your element, the real Donny.
her point was that it would have made much more sense to see this sort of thing, you know, back when people were constantly terrified that the Mooslims were going to fly drone planes over the lower 48 and give us the biggest poison-gas crop dusting you ever did see.
Yeah, um, that would have made more sense. Jesus, is being a factional hack contagious?
Obamamite sounds like Vegemite, which I don't like one bit, though it does taste better than supporting a war criminal. Still, I'm'a have to stick with Obamaite.
Obamaton
I have to laugh at a supposedly objective paper called "Towers of Rage, Echoes of Hate". Hmm, biased, perhaps? Especially since it is only an abstract and the actual paper is nonexistent.
"Bungalows of Annoyance, Rainbows of Indigestion."
Oh, bomb, aw'ight!?
Yeah, um, that would have made more sense. Jesus, is being a factional hack contagious?
Right. So people lash out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, then things more or less settle down for several years, then suddenly there's a whole new upsurge in strident anti-Islamic rhetoric and activity, apropos of nothing, apparently. I really don't see why it's so ludicrous to suggest that it's all part of the general right-wing freakout following Obama's election.
I like Obamamite for its similarity to catamite.
Meanwhile, back on the home front, one law for us...:
"Obama has condemned the "senseless slaughter" of four Israeli settlers"
"Right. So people lash out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, then things more or less settle down for several years, then suddenly there's a whole new upsurge in strident anti-Islamic rhetoric and activity, apropos of nothing, apparently. I really don't see why it's so ludicrous to suggest that it's all part of the general right-wing freakout following Obama's election."
Except the entire point of my original comment was that it in fact was not "apropos of nothing," but in fact was apropos of a long-standing, if necessarily muddled, campaign to justify all of our ongoing hostilities in the Middle East and North Africa(!) in the name of fighting "militant" or "radical" Islam.
I in fact conceded that the melanin of O-bomber did in fact have something to do with it, although I pointed to other causes as the main drivers. On the other hand, you (and Digby apparently) want to assert that "it's ALL part of the general right-wing freakout following Obama's election." (emphasis mine)
It seems to me that you're the one taking the maximalist (and fanboy) position here, Mr/s. Anonymous.
And, in Pabst, I apologize for using "in fact" so much. That was rhetorically clumsy.
Post a Comment