The New York Times defends assassinations

[Panaconda]

The New York Times defends assassinations
11 October 2010

In its main editorial Sunday, the New York Times, the major voice of what passes for liberalism in America, openly defends the right of the US government to assassinate anyone it pleases. The only restriction the Times suggests is that the president should be required to have his selection of murder victims rubber-stamped by a secret court like the one that now approves 99.99 percent of all electronic eavesdropping requests.

The apologia for killing begins with a blatant lie about the US assassination program using missiles fired from CIA-operated drone aircraft flying along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Times claims, citing official US government sources: “The drone program has been effective, killing more than 400 Al Qaeda militants this year alone, according to American officials, but fewer than 10 noncombatants.”

Actually, Pakistani government officials estimated the number of civilians killed by drone attacks in 2009 alone at more than 700, with an even higher figure this year, as the Obama administration has rained missiles and bombs on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.(See “US drone missiles slaughtered 700 Pakistani civilians in 2009” .)

...

The editorial claims that US drone missile attacks are legal under international law as self-defense, but this is flatly rejected by human rights groups and legal experts, except those who work as paid apologists for the CIA and Pentagon. The United States is not at war with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, but US missiles have struck the territory of all these countries and annihilated their citizens.

...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/pers-o11.shtml

[MineralMan]

1. Unrecced due to source.

This is not Socialist Underground. This is not a news story. It is an anti-administration editorial.

[blindpig]

3. How about it's an anti-war editorial.

If the Administration wasn't doing these things then they wouldn't be talked about.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[provis99]

4. this isn't Liberal Underground either.

Should we ban all the liberal websites, too?

[MineralMan]

12. It's Democratic Underground. As a liberal, I like this site very

much. I'm not an active socialist, politically, even though my philosophical beliefs are socialistic. Democrats come in many flavors. Socialists are socialists. I have an opinion about this OP. I posted it. You may have a different opinion. Thanks for commenting on my post. I feel like it's important to give a reason for an unrec, so I did. Enjoy your day.

[Luminous Animal]

5. How about you put together a list of approved sources.

[G_j]

9. yes, we NEEDa list from the net -nanny

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

11. When did posting my opinion make me a net-nanny?

It's my opinion. That counts as one DUers opinion, and no more. Thanks for commenting on my post.

[G_j]

15. you are very welcome nt

[MineralMan]

10. How about I just unrecommend and give my reason for

doing that? Last I heard, DU members can do that here. You disagree with my opinion? That's fine with me, and also the right of all DU members. Other than that, there's no reason for me to make a list of any kind. I'm just a DUer like you. Thanks for replying to my post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Nor is it Capitalist Underground.

Or, Christian, Homosexual, African-American, Environmentalist, Moderate, Marxist, Vegetarian, Feminist, Underground. Yet all those views are expressed, and sourced by publications that adhere to their views.

[MineralMan]

18. OK. Did I say the OP shouldn't have been posted? I did not.

I said that I didn't recommend it for the Greatest Page, and explained why. Your opinion apparently differs from mine. You can recommend the OP, if you like. Thanks for commenting on my post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. You're the one making the reference to socialism being unwelcome here.

[MineralMan]

20. No...actually I am not. I am unrecommending a post and

explaining why I did that. I said nothing about the OP being unwelcome here. I said that I did not think it should be on the Greatest Page, because of its source, which does not reflect, in my opinion, the majority viewpoint here.

If I believed that source should be unwelcome here, I would have sent an email to the administration of this site, since I have no actual say in such things. I did not send such an email. I merely unrecommended the OP.

Thanks for your response. I'm always glad to explain myself to avoid misunderstandings.

[Panaconda]

22. What are your thoughts

on the editorial itself?

Well at least you have the courage to unrec openly and explain why even it makes zero sense.

[MineralMan]

25. My thoughts are that the numbers aren't supported with references.

The judgments being made, therefore, may not be accurate.

[gratuitous]

2. Oh, who needs those quaint rules of law, anyway?

We need to respond quickly because we're in an existential war against ruthless terrorists here. If someone needs to die, then they need to die right this second, because we don't have time for any namby-pambyland "rules" or "laws" to get in the way. It's only when the terrorists and those who support them understand that we can kill them at any second without warning that they'll truly turn from terror to the ways of peace.

[ThomCat]

21. The US doesn't really believe in the rule of law anymore.

Not when we believe in assassination, rendition, torture, tribunals with their own special fixed rules of evidence and laws, spying on Americans, and having the FBI round up large diverse groups peaceful activists to put them in front of grand juries to accuse them of aiding terrorists as a means of intimidation.

Not when Elections can be purchased by the highest bidders now, even hostile foreign powers, and those bidders don't have to reveal who they are.

Not when corporate lobbyists are invited "to the table" to write legislation, but we the people who will be most affected by that legislation have no influence over it at all.

Under the rule of law, we were citizens, and citizens had rights.

Now we are just consumers and customers, and we have no rights at all. We only have responsibilities.

[stray cat]

6. It would have been wrong to assasinate Osama bin Laden before or after 9-11

but i wish we had

[G_j]

7. fewer than 10 noncombatants...

who in their right mind believes that???

[stray cat]

8. Assassinating Hitler and preventing World War II would have been wrong

[Uncle Joe]

13. You're absolutely right, that would have been wrong, because we would have become Hitler.

Hitler deserved being killed because of his actions, not because of actions he might have done in the future tense.

[BzaDem]

26. Sick. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

27. Okay, I'll ask you... what year do you thing Hitler should have been assassinated.

[apocalypsehow]

30. 1933. n/t.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Why 1933? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

35. That was the year he took power - the 1st year of accountability for actions officially ordered. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

36. So you would have assassinated him just for coming to power?

Those actions "officially ordered" ie: Starting WWII and committing genocide had not happened in 1933.

On the other hand if the United States had Hitler assassinated simply for coming to power, why would we stop with him, any political leader not to our liking would be ripe for assassination.

If we told the rest of the world that leaders not approved by the U.S. would be killed and we acted on it, would the world resent us, would they declare war against us?

Would we be the bad guys?

[BzaDem]

33. Let's just say we should have gone to war with Germany long before we did

and once we were at war, it wouldn't even violate international law to assassinate Hitler.

[Luminous Animal]

23. What year do you think "we" should have assassinated Hitler?

[apocalypsehow]

31. 1933. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

32. Very interesting that you put "we" in quotation marks. Very interesting, indeed. n/t.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. posted in wrong place - delete

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. So does Al-Queda. With similar justifications.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Friedrich Nietzche

[Luminous Animal]

24. +1

[apocalypsehow]

28. I meant to UnRec this garbage, but accidentally Rec'd. It's still garbage - and from a ridiculous

source. :thumbsdown:

[treestar]

29. So were all the killings in Viet Nam also "assassinations?"

How about World War II?

[maryf]

37. Here's the link to the times article itself:

Not that it's news fit to copy in my opinion ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/opinion/10sun1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=assassinations&st=cse

I like to read critiques and the original before I shoot any messenger, not sure how many do that here...I do especially like the final paragraph in the OP article:

"The open reactionaries like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News display their bloodlust unashamedly. The “liberals” like the Times prefer a dose of hypocritical moralizing and legalistic quibbling. The consequences for humanity are the same."

Sounds like the difference between the latest two administrations to me...but I digress, which unfortunately so many did here. I heartily recommend the OP. The ensuing thread? Well, I don't believe in the unrec button so I'll leave it at that. :) (kr in case I wasn't clear!)

[Rex]

39. The NYT withheld a news story that would have changed the 2004 election cycle.

I use the slick sides as toilet paper but the parrot gets most of the rest.

[maryf]

40. all the news that's fit

to shit on...

[maryf]

41. dupe nt

[Hannah Bell]

38. k/r