In September, Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law released a joint study entitled "Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From U.S. Drone Practices in Pakistan."
Since 2004, the United States has launched hundreds of attacks via unmanned drones within northwest Pakistan, despite Pakistan’s protests. The drones, which are piloted by radio operators here in the United States, are touted as a means of saving the lives of U.S. troops and making warfare more efficient.
Without boots on the ground, we can safely target and kill terrorists half a world away.
The question is: "Safely for whom?" A favorite narrative among Americans is that such warfare is surgical and precise and does little "collateral damage." Collateral damage is the standard euphemism for "killing innocent men, women and children."
According to the study, that "surgical" narrative is false. Its best estimate is that, from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, drone attacks in Pakistan killed 2,593-3,365 people; 474-884 were civilians, including at least 176 children; 1,249-1,389 people were injured.
The remote-control murder of innocent husbands, fathers, wives and children calls into question the ethics of drone warfare. Does drone warfare meet the Church’s criteria of just war, as laid out by the Catechism?
There is a reason the Catechism teaches:
"The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties" (2312).
"Non-combatants, wounded soldiers and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely" (2313).
The drone approach has angered Pakistanis and others in that region of the world and helped to radicalize them against the U.S., helping to create a fertile field for terrorists to recruit new converts.
One aspect of just-war teaching is that the war must not create evils worse than the evil being fought.
Most Americans are not aware of the realities of how the Obama administration conducts this war. Here are some salient things to remember:
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker notes, when describing the CIA’s drone strikes, "The program is classified as covert, and the intelligence agency declines to provide any information to the public about where it operates, how it selects targets, who is in charge or how many people have been killed."
The program, Mayer says, is founded on a claim by the Obama administration that the drone program is subject to no judicial review and that those targeted for killing are secretly targeted on the president’s unilateral will alone — even if they are American citizens.
In other words, we live — right now and not in some dystopian future — where the president has seized the power to order the immediate death of anyone he chooses, foreign or citizen, without any obligation to present evidence for his death decree to any public scrutiny, much less permit the target for killing the opportunity for arrest, trial, judge, jury or verdict.
Mayer continues, "ecause of the CIA program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war. Should something go wrong in the CIA’s program — last month, the Air Force lost control of a drone and had to shoot it down over Afghanistan — it’s unclear what the consequences would be."
So what happens when the president’s drone war winds up killing and maiming women, children or other civilians (as, for example, has happened multiple times in the deliberate targeting of funerals or family members and rescue workers who have come to help the dead and injured from a previous drone strike, according to Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian)?
According to The New York Times, "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It, in effect, counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
In short, the administration deals with the killing of civilians by calling them terrorists after we’ve killed them.
Such a method positively invites abuse. And abuse it has created. For the reality is that, as Conor Friedersdorf reports in The Atlantic, "The Obama administration permits the CIA to carry out ‘signature strikes’ even though they don’t know the identity of the people they’re trying to kill!"
You read that right. According to Greenwald, "In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that after the U.S. kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals."
In other words, our drone war has led not to accidental collateral damage, but to the willful and indiscriminate murder of civilians — exactly the opposite of the "surgical approach" it is touted as.
A common — and perfectly sound — argument on the pro-life front for those who are unsure of whether an unborn baby is a person is that you would not fire a gun into a bush without checking to see whether it was a deer or another hunter. So, if in doubt, don’t shoot.
Our policy of drone warfare is the opposite: We are in many cases shooting at people we know nothing about in the hope that some may be terrorists. And, as citizens, we are handing over to an absolutely unaccountable executive the power to secretly order the death of anyone he chooses.
Imagine, say, the Chinese using drones on our soil to target and kill suspected criminals or members of the Chinese mafia. Would Americans be satisfied with the explanation of the Chinese government if they said that somewhere between 500-1,000 innocent Americans killed were "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage"?
Could there be a more efficient way for China to provoke war?
Mark Shea blogs at NCRegister.com and at Catholic and Enjoying It!
Comments
Post a Comment
Yikes!! Thanks for the info
“Securing the homeland through indiscriminate slaughter abroad!” The actions of our government are truly heinous, and the words of its apologists truly reprehensible.
Greenwald goes further.
We intentionally target rescuers - firemen and medics - and that is a a war crime. We target mourners at the funerals - some of them must be - whatever we are saying, which is also a war crime. Of course they are all Al Queda’s #2s - not unlike the old Patric McGoohan Prisoner series. There are an unlimited number of #2’s. Some are mothers, others are toddlers.
From the “right” if you don’t like Greenwald, Jack Hunter:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/pro-life-means-anti-drone/
So it is not only unjust and immoral, but criminal, but no one will call for prosecutions no more than anyone called for such for the torturers under Bush. Even the horrors of Abu Gharib only hit the small fry.
Shame on them and any Catholic who can only sleep soundly as long as violent men are willing to commit mortal sins on their behalf. Shame on the Bishops, and they ought not wonder why no one believes they can tell right from wrong. If you don’t call for prosecuting criminals who do heinous acts - pederast priests or war criminals, (much less billionaires who get bailouts for causing people to lose their jobs and homes) you have no credibility on speaking on paying a few pennies for contraception much less the abortion holocaust.
You argue that drones don’t conform to just war theory because they produce an evil greater than that being fought and then go on to describe Obama’s use of them.
Even if this were true (which could be debated) surely that would only condemn the use of drones in this particular circumstance, rather than the use of drones in general. One could easily imagine drones being used in another circumstance where this woouldn’t be the case.
Also, could be not argue that drones are potentially goood in that they offer a possibility of reducing the overall quantum of force used and therefore minimise harm. For example if we could have used a drone to kill Hitler, wouldn’t that be better than the tens of thousands who died in the invasion of Europe?
Technology that limits the number of civilian non-combatant casualties is good.
The problem is that the enemy fires their weapons from Mosque, School, and Hospital properties.
Technology does allow us to know exactly where the enemy is firing from. It is not like it used to be years ago.
QUOTE:
CCC: ” 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. ” UNQUOTE
“Drones don’t kill people. People kill people.”
Is the problem really with drone technology, or is it with the way they’ve been employed? Wouldn’t the killings be just as wrong if they were conducted with traditional manned aircraft? If so, let’s make sure our focus is where it needs to be - on the flawed policies, and not on the technology used.
Is the problem really with drone technology
No and yes. By all means, attack the pliciy itself, regardless of the tech used to carry it out. The problem with drone technology itself is that it allows those wh use them to have far less “skin in the game”. Precisely because it puts few to no user lives at risk, it is far easier to order drone strike than to mobilize an aircraft (with risk of being shot down or just malfunction) or ground troops.
As far as “skin in the game” goes. It seems to me that a drone has no less skin than a cruise missile. Given that drones (at least in principle) ought to be more accurate than a cruise missile, and given that they are flown (remotely) by an actual pilot who can use his human intelligence to intervene on targeting decisions, then surely drones represent a more just alternative to other established mechanisms of war.
Also the very fact that the pilot is not physically located on the batttlfield means that his own life is not in danger. Compared to a manned aircraft he has more time and less pressure upon him when making targeting decisions. This in prnciple ought to reduce the prospect of collateral damage.
Once again, the argument is over what is a war and what is legitimate self-defense. The question should be, “Is the War on Terrorism” a legitimate war. Another: “Can killing a terrorist be considered to be self defense where other options (such as arrest) are not possible?” These questions needs to be debated first.
I would argue that we ARE at war, this war is legitimate on our side, but extralegal on the other, and that, in war, targeting command structure is ALWAYS legitimate. Killing the bomb-maker, or the operational commander is legitimate. It saves the lives of innocents who are ALWAYS the terrorists’ main target. *[A formal “Declaration of War” is not necessary for it to be legitimate.]
On the other hand, this (and all war) must be fought in a way that minimizes collateral damage. Many of the terrorists who have been killed in these strikes were hit while planning operations (or conducting them) while in a home with innocents present. Being terrorists, they are happily hope their families will join them as “martyrs”.
This is horrifically tragic. That any one person should EVER die; whether in a situation of self-defense or war, whether innocent or combatant, is tragic. A moral people needs to take every last step to prevent a single death. Yet, when all else fails (and it has), we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to defend our own lives and those of our countrymen.
Perhaps if the public was also aware of what mayhem and murder has been averted due to these strikes it would be clear that each strike saves countless innocent lives - even in the terribly tragic instances where other innocents have been lost. Meanwhile….we do as we must, but this will not end without prayer, fasting and real conversion.
You argue that drones don’t conform to just war theory because they produce an evil greater than that being fought and then go on to describe Obama’s use of them.
No. I argue that our use of drones doesn’t conform to just war because we deliberately target innocent civilians on the theory that some of them might be terrorists. The technical term for this is “murder in the first degree” not “collateral damage”. It’s a war crime. It’s also a mortal sin. Catholics should stop making excuses for it.
“I argue that our use of drones doesn’t conform to just war because we deliberately target innocent civilians on the theory that some of them might be terrorists.”
If that’s the case then your own words agree that the issue lies not with the drones themseves, but with the targeting decisons which are being made for their deployment. If what you say is true and non-combatants are being deliberately targeted, then that is clearly in breach of jus in bello principles. However, it would be just as much a breach if the same targeting procedure was used in the deployment of other weapons, like infantry soldiers, artillery, or archers with bows and arrows.
It remains the case that is perfectly possible to deploy drones and remain within jus in bello law. One could send a drone to attack a military installation ful of uniformed enemy combatants, if one so wished.
Perhaaps your article should have been named something like “Obama’s Assassination Programme vs. Just War Teaching”. That gets to the heart of the issue rather than deflecting blame onto a soulless machine.
I’m not seeing a lot of deflecting on to machines in this piece. I do note that this technology makes it easier to commit murder behind a veil of secrecy and ease (much as a silencer helps an assassin do his work with less fuss), but I think it’s pretty obvious that the buck stops with the President’s choice to commit murder, not with the murder weapon.
OK - let me make this plain and then we can all go to bed:
I agree the use of drones as described above is outside of jus in bello principles and clearly wrong.
Do you agree that it woould be possible to use drones to conduct warfare which is entirely within jus in bello principles? Yes or no?
Sure. But the point is, we aren’t. It would be possible to use a silencer ethically too. But the technology invites wicked people to use it immorally. The onus here is on the President, not the drones. But the drones make it much easier for the President to murder. (And we help the process too when we refer to the deliberate targeting of civilians as “collateral damage” and not as what it is: murder.
Thank you for your unequivocal answer that drones can be used licitly in war.
The title of your article therefore conceals the fact that you object to a PARTICULAR use of drones rather than the GENERAL use of drones.
Drones are also therefore not intrinsicly evil in the way in which nuclear weapons are for example. Nuclear weapons cannot be ever be used liciity because they cannot distinguish combatants from non-combatants, they pollute the environment and they use an utterly disproportionate quantum of force. All of which drones do not if deployed properly.
Therefore drones and nuclear bombs fall into entirely separate categories. One of which requires elimination from human affairs, and one which requires moral fortitude to utilise justly.
I sort of assumed the reader would read the whole article and not just the title. And since I nowhere compared drone to nuclear weapons or called them intrinsically immoral to use, I’m not really sure what your point is. *My* point is that they are being used immorally and that the sort of technology they are invites immoral use, even if, in theory, they can be used justly. I’m glad you acknowledge the nukes may never be used justly. It amazes me how many Catholics appear out of thin air each August 6 to defend the mass murders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Innocent civilians are NOT purposely targeted. That is a lie. (And a sin to repeat, BTW, that slanders the good people who carry out these missions.) The terrorists are being targeted as a part of this just war. But civilian deaths are avoided. Extremely comprehensive measures are taken to AVOID innocents being killed. This is the exact opposite of “targeting”.
I am pretty sure that your information on how this process takes place is thin at best. It is a very complicated and careful process, with lots of people involved and many layers of oversight.
This is NOT carpet bombing here. It’s pretty much the exact opposite, in fact.
It is true that innocents ARE killed at times. That is a horror. But they are not killed on purpose and they are not knowingly targeted. No just war has ever been fought without the accidental deaths of innocents. (It is also true that the statics and stories of innocent deaths are often a bunch of made-up-baloney. It’s called “disinformation” and the enemy uses it all the time. That people fall for it is amazing. They have even gone so far as to drag out the bodies of children killed in other places and place them at the scene in order to claim a propaganda victory.)
When Ali XYZ shows up at some safe house for a bomb planning meeting and it becomes known where he is, HE will be targeted. The target is not his wife. However, if he happens to hold the meeting while his wife is there, and that is not known, and she is killed in the strike, that is NOT INTENTIONAL. That is not murder. Murder has to be intentional to be murder. I believe if you knew what went into planning one of these strike missions you would understand this better. (I am sure you would be stunned at how often these missions are called off, because civilians are seen in the area, etc.)
Besides, killing someone (when that is the only way to stop him) who is about to commit mass murder of innocents has never been “unjust”. By that logic, a police sniper who takes out a wild gunman but whose round ricochets and kills an innocent child nearby is also waging an unjust war and is a murderer.
“Innocent civilians are NOT purposely targeted. That is a lie.”
Yes. They are. This is the truth. For heaven’s sake, we deliberately murdered a sixteen year old boy for the crime of being the son of another guy we murdered on the President unilateral order alone. How do we know he deserved to die. Because the people who ordered his murder tell us that if he didn’t deserve to be killed they would not have done so. Some day those people will be offering the exact some rationale to the press for murdering American citizens who are Catholic, not Muslim. And you will have helped them get there by making excuses for this lawless criminality.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.