The NYT reports that the Administration will increase the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings in Pakistan.
The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.
By increasing covert pressure on Al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, while ground forces push back the Taliban’s advances in Afghanistan, American officials hope to eliminate any haven for militants in the region.
One of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, the drone program is quietly hailed by counterterrorism officials as a resounding success, eliminating key terrorists and throwing their operations into disarray. But despite close cooperation from Pakistani intelligence, the program has generated public anger in Pakistan, and some counterinsurgency experts wonder whether it does more harm than good. . . .
Prosecutorial Indiscretion says:
Drones are an awesome option to have, and I support their use where necessary, but if we have to use them with some degree of moderation. I think the backlash from killing people half a world away with a killer robot army is not worth it, especially given the inevitably of civilian casualties. We need to limit drone use to the key links in the network and not try to use them to wipe out everybody on the other side. By way of analogy, the CIA run right needs to occasionally murder an enemy of America, but if we started doing that sort of thing a couple times a week we’d start looking like a bunch of thugs. And that doesn’t even take into account the faceless robot nature of the drones. If we use the drones too much, every new recruit on the other side will feel like the next John Connor.
December 4, 2009, 8:50 amStrick says:
UAVs are invaluable, but this smacks of the old view you could win wars with air power alone or gather intelligence with just satellites. Some times you just need boots on the ground.
December 4, 2009, 9:23 amCountDuckula says:
I don’t think you understand.
We can kill people from 15,000 miles away with a killer robot army. It’s pretty much the greatest thing since the atlatl.
Civilian casualties are always inevitable, no matter what method of killing people you are using. Heck, even with due process of law we still sometimes sentence innocent people to death in a court of law. How could anyone think we’d be able to kill people on a battlefield and avoid civilian casualties? Messing up sometimes is inevitable.
Given that, it seems like we decided it’s worth it to kill some civilians accidentally sometimes in order to do whatever it is we are doing there.
Pretty sure we already look like that, deserved or not.
Maybe that means they’ll start to ponder how they could have sent their own father back in time to father themselves, and forget about that whole fighting thing.
December 4, 2009, 9:31 amM00se says:
Somebody refresh my memory – when did we declare war on Pakistan?
What? We didn’t? Aren’t we going to then bring all those poor “enemy combantants” back to the US for their “due process”?
No?
Oh. Just wondering. I’ll go back to being disillusioned…
December 4, 2009, 9:42 amKen Arromdee says:
The White House has authorized a second type of unmanned drone. These are commonly referred to as “bullets”. Once fired, they follow their path to the target using only the laws of ballistics, without further human intervention….
There’s really nothing new about unmanned drones except for scale, and the fact that some people think war should give the enemy a fighting chance to escape.
December 4, 2009, 9:50 amrarango says:
I think there is a middle ground between Prosecutorial Indiscretion and Strick’s positions. Both raise valid concerns, and the mechanism to bridge the gap is the use of small unit special operations forces that can, at least theoretically, validate intelligence before drone strikes. While I think Mr. Obama’s commitment of forces is a good step in Afghanistan, I still believe marine exepedionary units, and army brigades are not what is needed for that type of operation. I suggest we need the small, highly trained units to penetrate deep into afghanistan, and yes, into Pakistan, to extend our reach. Drones are probably the best way to deliver fire power in small enough amounts to avoid the type of damage caused by such tactics as Viet Nam era carpet bombing with B52s.
December 4, 2009, 9:57 amDotar Sojat says:
I salute anybody who knows what an atlatl is.
December 4, 2009, 10:16 amBob from Ohio says:
What about their habeaus rights?
What about killing people in a neutral country? Have the been found guilty of a crime by an Article III court?
This administartion is just flagrant in its disregard for the rule of law!
December 4, 2009, 10:17 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
….”atlatl” is a Falcons fan who stutters, right?
December 4, 2009, 10:27 amConstantin says:
Looks like he’s planning on “air raiding villages and killing civilians,” as someone once said.
December 4, 2009, 10:39 amOren says:
The AUMF authorizes attacking Al Qaeda without geographical restriction. The President does not need to declare war on Pakistan to authorize an attack on their soil (legally speaking anyway, the State Dept. has their own mess).
December 4, 2009, 11:07 amMark N. says:
Not sure what I think about it, but Obama’s been telegraphing this for a long time. As a review article by a certain Kenneth Anderson points out, Candidate Obama called in July 2008 for “more Predator drones”.
December 4, 2009, 11:36 amPintler says:
I think Prosecutorial Indiscretion has this one right. As the saying goes, ‘War is a continuation of politics by other means’. If people perceive drones as different from sending in a sniper or raid team, then they are different. The War on Terror is a more like a counter insurgency operation than a force on force clash of armies. Provoking the more powerful opponent into a response that causes collateral damage is a standard tactic of insurgencies, because the friends and relatives of the damagees end up blaming the opponent, not the insurgents (that has always seemed odd to me, but there are many historical examples).
December 4, 2009, 12:31 pmKevin P. says:
From the article:
Is Mr. Alston actually implying that President Obama is a war criminal?
On a related topic: Prof. Alston seems to be a US resident and might even be a US citizen. If he is a US citizen, is he skating close to the definition of the word that shall not be named:
At some point, lawfare on behalf of the enemy gives them Aid and Comfort.
December 4, 2009, 12:39 pmTamerlane says:
If I remember rightly, General Jackson strung up a few Brits in neutral Spanish Florida without a trial back in the 1820s. there’s precedent pre-dating Thucydides for this kind of thing. With enough training the rambunctious elements annoying the current super-powers learn to behave and there’s less need for the killing.
December 4, 2009, 12:49 pmLarryA says:
[Salutes back] And no, you can’t use them to hunt with in Texas, including during archery season.
December 4, 2009, 12:57 pmTrebbers says:
You mean bots on the ground, right?
December 4, 2009, 1:04 pmAllan Walstad says:
Well, if you’re in the military industrial complex, drones are just great I’m sure. Great for business. People see their neighbors’ and relatives’ homes blown to smithereens by robots. They get angry and hateful and sign up with al-Quaida. Next thing you know, there’s a bigger market for drones.
I’m curious. What definition of “terror” and “terrorist” distinguishes our actions from theirs–or indeed, us from them?
December 4, 2009, 1:30 pmDave N says:
I believe something happened on September 11, 2001. Perhaps I am wrong.
December 4, 2009, 1:34 pmDave N says:
Less snark: al-Qaeda started the war. We are allowed to finish it. Contrast Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. If you don’t see the difference between December 7, 1941 and August 6, 1945, that is your problem, not mine.
December 4, 2009, 1:37 pmCountDuckula says:
Ooh, I can see the difference!
One was an attack on a military installation and fleet that killed 2300 soldiers and 57 civilians, and the other was an attack on a city that killed 100,000 civilians.
December 4, 2009, 1:48 pmDotar Sojat says:
Larry – how ’bout with an arbalest?
December 4, 2009, 2:07 pmJen says:
Mr. Walstad, I’m with Dave N.
Consider for a moment that Al Queda had no qualms with the “civilian casualties” (including children) of 9/11. If we become too paralyzed by our own consideration of potential innocent casualties, then we become incapable of defending our own families.
December 4, 2009, 2:19 pmdavod says:
“By increasing covert pressure on Al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan”
It is not covert if you tell everyone.
December 4, 2009, 2:25 pmDave N says:
Count Duckula,
I shed no tears for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The alternative was an invasion. The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated there would be 1.2 million Allied casualties and 267,000 Alllied DEAD with an American led invasion of Japan.
So be self-righteously smug all you want. The bottom line is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right things to do. They saved lives.
December 4, 2009, 2:36 pmpete says:
How is this any different than if they are blown up by bombs from jets with human pilots in them? Plus the military industrial complex charges a lot more for manned jets (Around $360 million for the F-22 raptor, $2.1 billion for the stealth bomber) than they do for unmanned drones (around $4.5 million) according to a quick google search.
December 4, 2009, 2:42 pmrarango says:
Count me in with Dave N and Jen–I didnt think it was that difficult to understand the difference between terrorism and warfare.
December 4, 2009, 2:44 pmAllan Walstad says:
Dave N, on 9/11/01 19 men armed with boxcutters hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, killing themselves and many others. Both before and since then, the US has been killing people in the Middle East, or arming others to do so for us (like Saddam Husein, for example.) Remember the Iraq embargo and Ms. Albright’s statement that the loss of life among Iraqi children had been “worth it?”
You say Al Q started it. So, just up and out of the blue they attacked without reason? No, apparently, their attacks have been in response to US military actions in the middle east–for example, US troops operating out of Saudia Arabia.
As for Pearl Harbor, it is well known that the Japanese attack was in response to a long period of purposeful provocation by the US and specifically FDR. And even if the Japanese attacked without provocation for strategic purposes, does that make them terrorists? Is anybody who attacks first a terrorist? Does the Bush doctrine of preemptive war thereby make us terrorists? Was the US a bunch of terrorists when it attacked Spanish colonies in 1898? Or do you really think the Spaniards started it by blowing up the Maine?
So how, precisely, is it that when they blow up buildings and kill people it’s terrorism and they’re terrorists, but when we do it it’s not and we’re not? I’m really interested to see if anyone can articulate a convincing distinction.
Jen, I’m not saying we should be paralyzed and never fight. I’m asking a question about words and how they are used. What definition of “terror” and “terrorism” clearly distinguishes us and what we do from them and what they do? Is there one?
December 4, 2009, 2:58 pmAllan Walstad says:
Pete: So, I guess we’ve stopped building fighters and bombers because drones work so well?
I do agree that when bombs blow up homes and bodies it may not make that much difference to the victims how the bombs got there. So again, where’s the distinction between us and them in terms of the words “terror” and “terrorism?”
December 4, 2009, 3:05 pmrarango says:
Terrorism is defined in US law; warfare and its “rules” is covered under the Geneva Conventions and US law including the UCMJ. As with any definitions, the distinctions are often blurred, but it seems to me the distinctions are there. Regretably there arent necessarily bright and shining lines, and terrorists as a matter of tactics use those situations to their advantage. From a practical military standpoint, dealing with terrorists who are not in uniform and often blend in a civilian population is difficult at best. But to cede the ground to terrorists for fear of incurring civilian casualties is not a good strategy. Sad to say, it is sometimes necessary to play the game by their rules when our rules are used against us.
December 4, 2009, 3:17 pmDave N says:
Shorter Allan Walstad: It’s all America’s fault.
December 4, 2009, 3:19 pmpete says:
No, but we will probably build fewer of them if a drone can do the same job for a hundred times less cost.
The essential difference is that terrorist intentionally try to kill as many civilians as possible and make it difficult for their enemies to avoid killing civilians, while modern western militaries try to kill as few civilians as possible and try to make it hard for their enemies to kill civilians. It is impossible to have any sort of large scale military conflict without killing civilians, but it is possible to make reasonable efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Reasonable people understand that.
December 4, 2009, 3:31 pmAllan Walstad says:
Dave N: A simple question about words, and you give up so easily and resort to innuendo.
Pete:
As in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? As in Dresden? As in the Iraq embargo that Ms. Albright thought was “worth it?” Is it not possible that Al Q thought of the twin towers, not to mention the White House and Pentagon, as military targets? The attack on the Cole was not aimed at civilians, so was that a terrorist attack or not?
December 4, 2009, 3:45 pmKen Arromdee says:
This is true, however this sort of criticism usually has the subtext that remote drones are immoral, not just that they’re perceived differently and should be avoided for practical reasons. And they’re usually considered immoral because the critic thinks that life is supposed to be like a movie where the hero has to give his enemy a fighting chance to get away.
December 4, 2009, 3:47 pmrarango says:
Mr Walstad: Re attacks on USS Cole and 9/11–I am sure the perpetrators considered them military targets; I would submit, however, that the attack on the Cole was a terrorist attack on a military target; there is nothing in the definitions laid out in US law that requires terrorists to attack only civilian targets. Terrorist attacks on military targets are often carried out by suicide bombers. The terrorists in the cases I mentioned are not uniformed and are not attempting to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of land warfare.
As to the atomic bombings of Japan and Nagasaki, and the attack on Dresden, modern warfare (at least to the extent that WWII represented modern warfare) requires breaking the enemy’s will to fight. And inflicting large scale casualties on the population of a combatant state is one way to do that (Sherman understood that as well on his march to the sea during the civil war).
I have attempted to respond to your questions in good faith–now a question for you, if I may: precisely how would you have brought about the end of the war in the Pacific in WWII? (The invasion of the home islands, Operation Olympic, was projected to cost over a million allied casualties, not counting civilian casualties.)
December 4, 2009, 3:58 pmpete says:
The Cole bombing was not a terrorist attack since the Cole was a legitmate target. The white house and pentagon were both legitimate military targets, but using civilian planes is not a legit tactic. Twin towers were not legitimate military targets despite what Al Quaida members thought.
Large scale bombings of cities are a bad tactic that result in mas civilians deaths and should be avoided whenever possible, although in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki both probably saved more civilian lives then they cost since the Japanese would in all likelyhood not surrendered for a long time otherwise. Deivices like drones and smart bombs make such large scale civilian death much more avoidable and people like you who claim to hate civilian deaths should cheer them since they greatly reduce the loss of civilian lives in war. But then you would not have the chance to feel so morally superior.
December 4, 2009, 4:09 pmSilly Judeo-Christian moral preening says:
Allan,
You’re being disingenuous. Hiroshima was an army depot and industrial area. Nagasaki was a major seaport and industrial area, and IIRC the bomb there exploded above the parade ground of a Japanese army unit, killing 10,000 of them. Dresden as you well know was a major industrial target. All legitimate military targets; civilian casualty was incidental and inevitable considering the siting of industries.
Tell me about the legitimate military value of Sbarro’s, nightclubs, and tourist traps.
Then tell me there’s no difference between one side and the other. Teenagers take positions similar to yours just to be annoying but they are expected to grow out of it.
The Iraq embargo appears to have been a mistake, like many such things are, considering those in a position to change Iraqi policy (Hussein) would have been well-insulated from the effects of the embargo. But this is what happens when people refuse to do the hard thing and settle for the easy one.
December 4, 2009, 4:10 pmpete says:
That makes them unlawful combatants, but not terrorists. More like German spies operating in the US during WWII.
December 4, 2009, 4:12 pmDave N says:
Allan Wallstad,
al-Qaeda uses American troops in Saudi Arabia (for the period of the First Gulf War and long since removed) as a pretext for their hatred of the United States and all it stands for. It wouldn’t matter a whit to al-Qaeda what the pretext was — just that it had one.
And yes, I see a difference between warfare and terrorism. Obviously, you don’t. More’s the pity.
December 4, 2009, 4:49 pmThe Awful Truth says:
Can’t we just attach a warrant to the warhead?
December 4, 2009, 5:15 pmAllan Walstad says:
rarango:
The answer is irrelevant, but I’ll give you an idea. Japan was completely defeated. There was no need to invade. They weren’t going anywhere. But the implacable demand was for their unconditional surrender. Short of that, two cities were nuked.
But of course, Al Q might ask, “How precisely would you have driven the Amercans out of Saudi Arabia and other muslim lands?” The problem implicit in your question is that ends justify means. So, if our cause is just, we can do damn well anything we please? Or where does it end? Does the distinction between us and terrorists lie simply in the fact that our cause is just? We can nuke whole cities, we can set up a firestorm (Dresden) that traps vast numbers of civilians and incinerates them? We can blockade an already-defeated regime (S.H.’s Iraq) at the cost of many civilian lives?
Al Q might say the same regarding the trade center. The military value lies precisely in its importance as a financial hub.
I’m not telling you that, Silly. I’m asking just what makes our adversaries “terrorists” for bombing and killing people, including civilians, when we do the same. What makes their attacks “terror” instead of simply “attacks?”
That was the Bush line, and I don’t buy it. I think “they hate us for our freedom, etc” was a way to distract any attention from how our own policies might have been involved in the motivation for the attacks. It’s a way of shutting minds and shutting off debate, just like Bush’s absurd claim that the 9/11 attacks were an act of “cowardice.” Just like using the labels “terror” and “terrorist.”
December 4, 2009, 5:56 pmKenB says:
Allan Wallstad excuses 9/11 because of Muslim offense arising from “US military actions in the middle east–for example, US troops operating out of Saudia Arabia.”
Whatever we did in Saudi Arabia, we did with the consent of the Saudi government. Unless you want to argue the Saudi government is not the legitimate representative of the Saudi people, it is just such consent that determines whether activities are acceptable.
I personally take grievous offense at 9/11, at Richard Reed, at Fort Hood, at the beheading of Daniel Pearl, and at numerous other attacks against Westerners. Am I, on account of that offense, entitled to attack Muslims? If not, explain why not in a way consistent with your justification of Muslim attacks against such as me?
December 4, 2009, 6:11 pmDG says:
He’s a troll. Stop feeding him. He’s giggling uncontrollably.
December 4, 2009, 6:25 pmM00se says:
OK, so to be a bit more blunt here: it would appear to me that Obama is engaging in the same behavior so reviled by Bush’s critics – that is “unlawful actions” in the face of “international concern”.
Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing to bring the war right to the terrorists. He is also risking the same things that Bush did in doing so. However it would seem that the there is some sort of barrier around Obama’s “extra legal actions” that Bush did not enjoy. Particularly given the kangaroo court in which KSM will be tried (he’ll be imprisoned for life no matter what the outcome of the trail) I would hope that someone would be calling his noble intentions into question. As it is, he’s getting the ol’ pat on the back from conservative commentators merely for not starting the withdrawl of troops from Afghanistan like, today.
I find the hypocrisy of the whole affair staggering…
December 4, 2009, 6:27 pmLarryA says:
Texas law changed this year. They’re legal during bow and regular season if they meet minimum draw weight and have a mechanical safety. Used to be crossbows were legal only for people with upper limb disability.
Anyone killing for the right to live the way they want to is a freedom fighter. Anyone killing to force other people live the way they want them to is a terrorist. YMMV.
Or we could mail them the warrant and post it on the internet, with the note that a predator will be dispatched by-n-by.
December 4, 2009, 6:32 pmThe Awful Truth says:
Wasn’t that the guy who he gets knifed in psycho?
December 4, 2009, 6:36 pmTurk Turon says:
That was Arbogast.
December 4, 2009, 7:19 pmMatthew Carberry says:
I thought that was the brown wizard in LotR?
December 4, 2009, 7:48 pmKieth says:
The drones rely to some extent on human intelligence, i.e., spies who pinpoint the location of targets. I also believe that the drones are at least equally dependent on cell phone monitoring. Thus, their accuracy is particularly problematic in the first instance where the pinpointing could be motivated by ignorance or some goal not consistent with that of our country. The drones may have the effect of denying convenient, spontaneous use of cell phones to jihadists which is, I suppose, good.
The overall accuracy of the drones is probably roughly equal to the accuracy of the average suicide bomber who kills whoever is at a market or traffic jam. And I think that the accuracy strongly correlates with moral decency. Well, war is indecent, we all knew that but there is something creepy about machines flying around killing people who may or may not deserve killing.
December 4, 2009, 7:51 pmAllan Walstad says:
I did no such thing. I believe there was a mission in Afghanistan, a limited one to attempt to catch bin Laden and some of his associates and to punish the Taliban for harboring them. We’re several years past the point of diminishing returns on that, in my opinion. Maybe we’d have had better success if we didn’t get distracted by Iraq.
I’m not real good with the acronyms, LarryA. But I’m heartily in favor of people living as they choose, and I respect people around the world and down through history who have fought for liberty. Still, you are painting with a broad brush, no? A majority of pols in Congress apparently want to force us to buy health insurance–i.e., to live as they say rather than as we choose. And you know damn well that you would be killed if you fought their impositions strenuously enough. But would you call them terrorists? The ancient Romans conquered many peoples, killing or enslaving those who resisted, but I hadn’t heard them referred to as terrorists. What about the Spaniards who imposed Christianity on conquered native tribes, who forced Jews to convert or be driven out of Spain? Even the Soviets, when they took over Eastern Europe after World War II and put it under Communism, weren’t referred to as terrorists, were they? On the other hand, your definition doesn’t seem to cover people who engage in suicide bombings, not to force others to live as they say, but to get back land they claim was stolen. Even suppose their claim was mistaken–do you think they are terrorists or not?
December 4, 2009, 8:06 pmSilly says:
“Terrorist is just what the big army calls the little army.” Comic book fans should know where that came from.
December 4, 2009, 10:46 pmIan Argent says:
Out of curiosity – how do you know that atlatls are prohibited? Or is there just no javelin season?
December 4, 2009, 10:51 pmKen Arromdee says:
Al Qaeda was not a government and nothing they attack is a legitimate military target. If a gang member shoots a policeman, does the policeman count as a legitimate military target? What about the gunman who just shot up a military base in Texas?
December 4, 2009, 11:05 pmElliot says:
The next step is using a drone to pinpoint targets for a laser mounted on a larger plane flying at 40,000 feet one hundred miles from the target. Explode the guy with a laser right in the middle of all those wedding parties.
December 4, 2009, 11:31 pmElliot says:
Try using one of the damn things and you’ll gain a lot of respect for our ancestors’ hand/eye coordination.
December 4, 2009, 11:34 pmdavod says:
“Al Qaeda was not a government and nothing they attack is a legitimate military target.”
Whe did you get this definition from?
December 5, 2009, 8:39 amKen Arromdee says:
I get this definition from the fact that doing it the other way makes no sense. Tell me, do you think a gang member attacking a policeman is committing an act of war against a legitimate military target? John Hinkley tried to kill Ronald Reagan; was that attacking a legitimate military target?
December 5, 2009, 9:21 amIan Argent says:
True enough. I’m an indifferent archer/crossbowman as it is. If I have to use a muscle-powered weapon I’ll stick to a light stabbing sword (epee or rapier).
Anyway – the whole drone thing shows a breakdown in the current nationstate system. We are at war (defined as “in an active struggle of armed force with an organized enemy”) but not with another nationstate. This has been relatively uncommon in the past century or two. There are two questions, one relatively easy to answer, one not so much. The first one is “Should we be targetting these individuals for attack when they are in Pakistan?” The second is “Is doing so with drones use of a justifiable level or force to do so?” I happen to think “yes” to both, but not unreservedly.
(Aside, John Hinkley was not at war with the US or Ronald Reagan – he was not “an organized enemy”. However, a “mafia war” would be a “war” under this definition. I’m still ponering that one)
December 5, 2009, 10:46 amAllan Walstad says:
So, governments and only governments can use force? Nonsense. If the government sets out to exterminate Jews, do Jews have no right to fight back? See, it looks a little different depending on what examples you choose.
December 5, 2009, 12:10 pmLarryA says:
I’d go so far as to say their political goals are the same. I’m pretty sure Celts, Native Americans, Jews, and Eastern Europeans were terrified. Personally, I don’t believe that government sanction makes an act less terroristic.
Do they want a piece of land to live on in their own way, or do they want to force all the inhabitants in the territory they claim to live under their moral law? I note that people who respect the beliefs of others seldom if ever kill random people to advance their own beliefs.
Suppose you’re sitting at home when a SWAT team smashes down your door, blows away the family pet, wounds you, and terrifies your spouse and children. Then it turns out that through sheer carelessness or incompetence they had the wrong address. Suppose local law enforcement officials and elected leaders shrug and say, “Oh, well. It’s a war on drugs. Sometimes there is collateral damage. We aren’t going to change any policies to try and avoid this kind of thing in the future.”
Isn’t that getting awful close to “terrorism?”
YMMV = “Your Mileage May Vary.”
December 5, 2009, 2:44 pmLarryA says:
I’m a Hunter Education Master Instructor. Texas law spells out what methods are legal to take game, and spears are not among them. Atlatl is classed as a spear, not a bow.
December 5, 2009, 2:50 pmBelieve it or not, the question has come up in class, particularly since certain role playing games became popular.
Allan Walstad says:
LarryA: ok.
I think the word “terrorist” is being used to describe weak people. They don’t have massive numbers of armored vehicles, fighter-bombers, missiles, etc. But they are determined not to be dictated to by countries like the US that do have all that. So they fight with what they have, like suicide bombs and I.E.D.s.
My concern with labels like “terrorists” and phrases like “war on terror” is that they are employed to discourage criticism of government policy and facilitate government’s seizing of ever more power. If you oppose torture, the insinuation is that you side with the terrorists or don’t care about possible future attacks. If you oppose war during wartime, the insinuation is that you are committing or approaching treason.
December 5, 2009, 5:48 pmCalifornio says:
I think using Bertie Wooster’s men’s club to attack people is very bad form. Good day to you Sir!
December 5, 2009, 10:59 pmLibrary: A Round-up of Reading « Res Communis says:
[...] Attack of the Drones – Volokh Conspiracy [...]
December 7, 2009, 1:03 pm