I'm tired of quibbling (even though that activity is so important to my job). Return to the basics.
Using drones to attack officially-designated "evil-doers" in anything but a pure war zone is a form of _terrorism_, just as with the use of strategic bombing when civilians are nearby. Just because the US or Israel uses high-tech methods doesn't make them less terrorist than the folks that they define as "terrorists" (such as al Qaeda or Hamas) who typically use low-tech methods. But what is terrorism anyway? At https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html, the CIA defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." If anyone would think up a definition of terrorism that would clear the CIA, it would be the Company itself. I don't see why officially-defined terrorists must be non-state or "subnational" organizations. It is special pleading to see terrorism as never being performed national groups (i.e., states). Remember that the first critiques of "terrorism" were against the French government during the aftermath of the 1789 Revolution. The labeling of non-state organizations but not states as potentially terrorist is just an apology for state power. Or it's part of a propaganda war. It's also unclear why it has to be "premeditated." The noncombatants may be mere "collateral damage" of an attack on a target that the attacker perceives as "military" whether in reality it is or not. Either way, it causes civilian terror. The US government may say that it doesn't intend to create terror and that its drone attacks are "exact" or "surgical," but what matters is the fact that they kill a lot of civilians. In some ways, "sloppy" terrorism (Obama's drone attacks) are worse than intended terrorism. In some ways, it's better, but both kinds of terrorism kill innocent civilians. In any event, I'd bet that al Qaeda also denies being terrorist, claiming that it has good intentions. Why should we believe the statements of either the US government or al Qaeda concerning their motives? I do understand the role of "politically motivated" in the definition of terrorism. But Obama's drone strikes are just as politically motivated as the 911 attack on the World Trade Center. What is war but the continuation of politics by other means? Of course, what is the CIA -- the organizer of drone attacks -- but a clandestine organization? So is the Defense Intelligence Agency. In the end, if using drones is terrorism, why does it matter whether the CIA or the Pentagon is in charge of it? or if there are cosmetic rules applied to it? Robert Naiman wrote: > There already are a bunch of people campaigning to end drone strikes. > They are getting arrested at military bases, etc. There are probably > people near you. Ae you communicating with them in order to carry their opinions to the politicians in DC? do they agree with the idea of making U.S. terrorism nicer? > When it comes to dealing with Congress, one needs to propose things > that Members of Congress might be willing to get behind. There are not > a lot of Members of Congress who are willing to push for ending all > drone strikes, and more public agitation for ending all drone strikes > is not likely to produce more. When Members of Congress take action, > they do so according to their own rules. The majority of public > opinion has long been ready to end the Afghan war tomorrow. But a bill > to end the Afghan war tomorrow would be lucky to get five signatures > in the House. It's not how Congress works. People try to do things > that are perceived as plausible. This is a naive view of politics. Normally, they take action because it helps drum up campaign contributions. Members of the House of Representatives are already thinking about and preparing for 2014; I'd bet that some of them have already had fund-raisers. The pressure is thus always there to serve the rich and their corporations and the _status quo_ more generally, though of course there are distinctions within "serving the rich" such as whether to serve the immediate greed and fears of the Teabaggers or to obey the more long-term capitalist interests expressed by folks such as George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. Of course, politics is relatively autonomous from such crude economic factors. A lot of delays have to do with the written and unwritten rules of the Congress and the "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" system of compromise. Either way, pressure from the outside is more effective than playing the Congressional game. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
