So, some dude says that high-ranking U.S. officials, potentially including President Obama, could face war crimes charges for using drones to hunt terrorists. He says: “Now, maybe the answer is: This is really terrible and illegal and anybody that does it should go off to the Hague. But if that’s the case, then we should not be having the president saying that this is the greatest thing since whatever.”
This is ridiculous. Using aircraft to eliminate enemy combatants? It’s war. This is how war works. Far worse things have been done by people who walked free.
Karl Rove has been defending it lately, so I thought I’d throw in my opinion on this.
It’s torture. There is no way around it.
I just thought it was time to clear that up. No more “harsh interrogation techniques”, folks. It is what it is.
Now, you might still say it was justified. It may well be that it was used to save American lives. Still, we have to be clear about what it is we’re talking about. I would have much more respect for guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney if they’d just come out and say: “Yes, it was torture. I don’t care, because it was the right thing to do to save innocent lives.”
It’s led to the capture of an important militant. This is excellent news. It’s also yet another reason why Barack Obama’s administration is better at fighting Jihadism than either George W. Bush’s or Bill Clinton’s.
This article describes Mullah Baradar being “regarded as brilliant and charismatic.” (Emphasis mine.)
It’s true people sometimes throw that word around without really knowing what it means, but if he really is charismatic, it supports the idea that charisma is a quality that is independent of character or morality. And if charisma is as powerful as it seems to be, that’s scary.
“The President’s changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.
However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues…”
(Italics mine.)
Maybe I’m crazy, but the italicized portion seems to be implying that this is in keeping with Bush’s policies, when, in fact it is a break from them. “Ramping up” means changing the policy. It’s not as drastic, I admit, but nevertheless Obama and Bush are not the same when it comes to the drone policy. Obama is more aggressive. This probably part of the reason Obama’s track record vs. Jihadism compares favorably with G.W. Bush’s and Clinton’s over their first terms.
