Daniel Ruth makes a point about raining robotic death from the sky; follow the link for the rest.
Those of us who had a problem with what’s-his-name asserting that the Constitution did not protect Americans because he said they were enemy combatants must also observe that Mr. Obama with his killing lists ordering death-from-on-high is in the same league. And so are his legal experts with their semantic gymnastics trying to justify treating American citizens as if they weren’t citizens. They drone on, same as it ever was, sort of.
It’s difficult, though. In my selective way, I concede that blasting some American al-Qaida member deep in Yemen seems reasonable. You can’t have the drone read him his constitutional rights through a loudspeaker. My attitude is: Occupy any area that is clearly a battlefield in a war against America, die. But too often there is collateral damage, the modern term for innocent people dead. We are on a slippery slope in a toboggan of our own manufacture.
My two or three regular readers know that I am not a fan of drone warfare.
Note that I am no more against drones in general than I am against M16s, Tanks, and aircraft carriers.
I’m not for any of them, but sometimes they seem necessary.
What troubles me is the packaging–drones are presented as somehow surgical weapons that always get the right target. Their PR makes gamers’ raining robotic death from the sky seem somehow, well, nice, antiseptic, almost harmless.
Yet, the “surgical strike” PR helps the citizenry turn away from the dealing of death.
As Bob Cesca points out, there is a possible corrective, and it’s not yelling “Obama=Bush”; anyone who is capable of grasping more than one thought at a time can see that he doesn’t.