Hi JT,
You may have missed the stories this week about the special rules for killing US citizens with drones.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/americas-disturbing-rules-for-assassinating-americans
The gap between the rules for foreigners and the rules for Americans is the special protection we were discussing.
Dig pointed out there is a legal distinction here which competes with the notion of due process. Due process has ancient origins and is a key protection for individuals against the state.
"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." - Magna Carta
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution
I am trying to think through the reason for the distinction between US terrorists and foreign ones.
I am not arguing the right of the US to use some means to defend itself against future attacks. A state is almost always justified in protecting its citizens.
But the question how it does so is always in play.
Obviously, some say the US brought its terrorism problems upon itself. That is not an argument I have employed. I have never thought there was a viable justification for terrorism.
At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that drone strikes create new terrorists. My usual formulation. For every brother, sister, friend or parent killed you may create 10 new people susceptible to resistance. For every child killed, perhaps 100. There's a reason al qaeda keeps metastasizing. In my view, it is borne of rage, humiliation, the sense of impotence.
There's no cost free form of engagement. Killing people from unmanned aerial vehicles based presumably on limited information at the risk of adding innocent bystanders to the kill list is a new form of justice.
Can you figure why terrorists attack US embassies and consulate offices? Why they attack tourists and foreign people working in the region?
They will find people to kill.
So there is a question about drones. Are they simply displacing murders into more vulnerable populations of US citizens?
| 