A ‘Debate’,of sorts, at The Daily Beast: The Killing of Anwar al-Awalaki by Political Cynic

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-and-why-president-barack-obama-is-right-to-kill-u-s-citizens.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-killing-obama-must-explain-his-targeted-drone-policy.html

Tina Brown at The Daily Beast attempts to provide a rather proscribed debate on the killing of Anwar al-Awalaki, for readers without a certain political sophistication and even the barest minimum of basic investigative skills. First is Mr. Richard Miniter with his essay titled 'Was Obama right to kill Al al-Awalaki?'I went to Wikipedia for revelatory background on this self-described  'Investigative Journalist, Best Selling Author' whose Right Wing credentials appear to be flawless, except for a rather troubling litigiousness. As one might suspect Mr. Miniter is a voluble advocate, in principle and in practice, of this policy and defends with well chosen arguments, based in strategic, pragmatic thinking rather than any dubious ethical/legal arguments. This surely is about defeating an enemy, a fellow citizen, who seeks through his actions to kill his fellow citizens, although it  bypasses the practice of due process, completely. It is a rather pedestrian, but well argued defense, fully partaking of the American Legitimist party line.     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Miniter

Mr. Stephen L. Carter's essay is entitled 'Whats wrong with Awlaki's killing?' Again, I went to Wikipedia and found his entry not quite as helpful as Mr. Miniter's. I can say two things, that I have followed Mr. Carter's writing on The Daily Beast since he started and that I have read the first one hundred pages of The Emperor of Ocean Park. As for this essay I find it unconvincing, even half hearted. But I feel compelled to quote two paragraphs:

"I do not say any of this as criticism of the administration’s growing reliance on remote-controlled drones in the killing of terror leaders. I support the policy. But targeted killing should not rest entirely within the secret discretion of our leaders. The law professor Kenneth Anderson, perhaps the leading academic expert on the legality of drone warfare, has been arguing for some time now that the United States, as the dominant user of drone attacks, should be developing norms to regulate their use. Not rules, says Anderson—he does not envision lawyers standing behind every console operator—but norms, a set of shared ethical understandings to help our leaders decide when the use of targeted killing is necessary and appropriate. I agree.

The right way to develop an ethical sense about the use of drones is through robust public debate. Alas, that task may be difficult, because the drone war tends to slide off the screen. When we have, in the argot, boots on the ground, the public pays keen attention to war, engaging in often spirited argument over rights and wrongs. But the drone war poses little threat to American forces, and the attacks are rarely reported unless some major figure is killed, or a missile goes off course and strikes a wedding."

This alone seems to indicate that not much separates Mr. Miniter from Mr. Carter, except in terms of their mutual assignments by their editor. Let us simply look at the 'ethical issue' of drone strikes and the issue of 'collateral damage', i.e. innocent civilian deaths, and the felt political necessities of empire and imperialist. Professor Anderson will develop 'norms' for drone attacks not specific policies, that might hinder, arguably restrict, military action, in the national interest. We can now consign Nuremberg and the whole set of proscriptions and imperatives, that it entailed, into the dustbin. And celebrate the sophistry of victors who will write the History of America, in the Age of Terror. Mr. Miniter and Mr. Carter have helped to make permanent that Golden Age of Endless War: we have already secured our economic decline.     
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Carter

Political Cynic
 

Unknown's avatar

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.