The USCC raises a few questions about Obama's drone war.
...Bishop Pates noted that while just-war theory would require that a
lethal act of counter-terrorism must be in defense of a "just
cause"--which in the case of the administration's policy is "protecting
citizens"--it must also be discriminating, avert a threat that is
imminent, be proportional and have a good chance of success.
"Targeted killing should, by definition, be highly discriminatory,"
Bishop Pates wrote the White House and the congressional chairmen. "The
Administration's policy appears to extend the use of deadly force to
alleged 'signature' attacks and reportedly classifies all males of a
certain age as combatants. Are these policies morally defensible? They
seem to violate the law of war, international human rights law, and
"Since imminence is more attenuated in counter-terrorism than in war,
should not discrimination in counter-terrorism meet a higher standard?"
asked Bishop Pates. "And shouldn’t the fact that targeted drone
killings take place outside any 'war' zone mean that operators should be
reasonably certain that no innocents will be endangered? Would we
tolerate frequent 'collateral damage' in U.S. police actions?"...
Good questions. Not included above is the question of defining "terrorists". As you recall, Ms. Napolitano includes pro-life and TEA Party people as part of that group.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment