What is remarkable is how the discussion is framed in the US. Why is it that killing a US citizen without trial terrible while deliberating whether killing a non citizen without trial is terrible not even part of the discussion?
Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.
At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners. I do not see a problem with starting with a low hanging fruit to let our friends have a taste of some sort of morality before trying to convince them to climb the tree for more...
That said, even if we some day manage to summon political will to regulate the use of violence by our government more strongly, violence of the threat thereof is an essential part of relations between human polities - framing it as uncivilized will not change that.
> At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners
I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago, when your president allowed it. I may be mistaken, as I'm not from the US and so not immersed in the culture on a daily basis.
If that's true, I would say that the current development is in the opposite direction of more restraint.
> I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago
U.S. citizens were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is believed that some of the ones that went to fight for the Nazis were also killed by American soldiers on the battlefield.
Exactly. Doing so in a deliberate, targeted manner was unthinkable. This is culturally related to the American axiom of never leaving anyone behind (fellow citizen, soldier, etc). Be it hero or traitor, we will go to extraordinary lengths to bring a citizen home for proper, lawful, respectful treatment.
The president who "allowed it" (how can I put this very tactfully) was likewise, as you put it, not so immersed in the culture on a daily basis (to wit, raised outside the US) - exemplified with Anwar Awl Alaki and Benghazi.
(Am trying to handle a hot topic delicately, pointing out differences.)
Any governments primary responsibility is to their citizens. Every government in the world has killed, but there is an even further burden of proof when you turn in against yourself.
It is the difference between supporting a mission (even one that many may disagree with), and simply being an organization that exists to continue itself.
Yep, it is kind of scary. It is as if non-Americans would not count as full humans. Human rights maybe apply, maybe not, depending on immediate political situation.
Same as with the NSA revelations: the NSA is spying on Americans? Horrifying! Now obviously we have to be able to spy on Johnny Foreigner, who knows what he will be up to, but our citizens?
It only shows how racist the American political and judicial system inherently is.
America is the only civilized country where the state sanctioned murder of foreign nationals is called an execution. Principles are principles and they extend to all human beings regardless of race or nationality.
Where did the US government provide proof that their targets were actively planning attacks on civilians?
They didn't. That is the issue.
Even a secret in-absentia trial with an appointed defender unable to communicate with the person they are defending would be better than the current system. It would still be a farce, but it would be vastly better.
The current system is state sanctioned murder. Nothing less.
That none of the people in the chain of command is on trial for murder says all we need to know about the callousness of the US government.
Could you kindly provide evidence of the threats are you referring to?
You are simply saying that the officials should be taken on trust alone?
An American citizen who open admits committing a crime gets more due process than a harmless child in some third world country. Do American military men ever have to produce evidence before killing children, as in www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0?
Or because some analyst needed to prove he is fast worker and decided to check "terrorist" box in some internal software. Or because boss decided give bonuses for catch terrorists and someone wanted a new car. The system with no independent oversight will end up abused in millions of ways, most often by people not caring about doing it right.
Heck, even real world cops make tons of mistakes or arrest people just to fill arrested bodies quotas and they do have judges to check upon them, at least in theory.
Or, most dangerously, because that person is outspoken politically dangerous person, not a terrorists and not planning anything, but did actually met with some terrorist twice. Say, muslim active in politics just about to do something uncomfortable for administration.
Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.