That it is different. That there is no difference. Each would be true, and each would be disingenuous.
It could be argued that the drone strikes are made against individuals, people who have ill will and bad intentions, perhaps even plans. That would be true, as far as it went. That the ill will is determined by people hundreds, and perhaps thousands of miles away. How much of that ill will is people blowing off steam? Standing and shaking a rifle at the heavens to rage against the unfairness of life. How is that much different than someone looking at an old friend in the heat of an argument and shouting "I'll kill you." Everyone present hears it, and everyone knows that they are old and close friends, and that in a day, or two, they will again be calm, and they will apologize, and they will shake hands, and perhaps embrace as the old friends they are.
Allow me to go off in a hypothetical situation if I may. Let's imagine my daughter was killed in an armed robbery, and the suspect was a black man. Could I not be forgiven for standing outside, and screaming at the heavens in my anguish? Could I not be forgiven if in that moment of inestimable anguish, I shouted an epitaph that in any other circumstance I would reject wholeheartedly? Would I be an enemy to black men for the rest of my days over that one night? In a day, probably less, I would begin to regain my senses, my perspective. I would again know in my heart that black men did not do this, a man who happened to be black did.
Imagine a drone flying overhead, looking for hate crimes, people who are espousing hate crimes. I have just learned my daughter was murdered. I am wrought with anguish, I scream my fury at the skies. I am overheard, I am seen by the drone. A decision is made, and a missile flies. It was a good attack, I met all the requirements. A white man shouting hatred about blacks. That I have never said anything like that before, and almost certainly never would again is irrelevant.
How many of those we have killed with drones fall into that category. Something that appears to be one thing, but was another entirely. How many weddings have we destroyed because someone looking at a screen hundreds, or thousands of miles away mistook a celebration for a rally of terrorists?
There may be times when force is required, but those times must be considered, and acted upon with restraint. Must we do this now is the first question we should always ask. Do we have enough information? Do we have enough to be sure that this is the right action?
We lose nothing in not bombing someone today. We lose nothing in taking a second look, a second opportunity to consider the situation.
Perhaps I should say I have no daughter, and I have never stood and shouted my anguish to the heavens. Perhaps I have been lucky, and perhaps I will never know the unimaginable horror that must overwhelm an individual at that time. I do know that when friends have suffered such a tragedy, I do not listen to their rants on that first night. Because they are not thinking at that time. They can't think, they can only feel. I am sympathetic, and I am a good friend. I am there to comfort, not to judge. I am sure that God would understand that when my friend shouted hatred at God for the death of a child, he was acting out of an anguish I can't begin to imagine.
We used to try and understand, now we try and check the block to allow us to fire a weapon. Angry man? Check. Weapon in evidence? I think that's one so check. OK, we've got a terrorist, shoot now. We end up firing a missile, perhaps at a terrorist, perhaps at a man who has just learned his child is dead from some other action. Perhaps he is merely doing his own version of shout I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. We don't wait to find out, and for that I am ashamed for my nation, and our time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
