Favorite

Drone policy indefensible 

We have probably talked and heard more about the Academy Award nominations and winners this month than whether it is right or makes sense for a nation supposedly dedicated to life and civil liberty to be killing its citizens for taking unpopular stances in foreign countries. What does that say about our devotion to life and liberty? What does it say about our ethics?

Shortly before John Brennan, President Obama's nominee to become the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his confirmation hearing earlier this month, the nation learned about a leaked Justice Department briefing paper that presented the case in favor of the U.S. policy on deploying unmanned drones against U.S. citizens in foreign nations. Two Americans considered sympathetic to Al Qaeda (Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan) were killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a CIA-operated drone in September 2011. A few days after that drone attack, another drone killed al-Awlaki's teenaged son in Yemen. The public has never been told how many other Americans may have been targeted, killed, or wounded in such attacks.

According to the leaked Justice Department briefing paper that was prepared in 2011, the Obama administration claims the authority to kill Americans living abroad with drones without charging and proving that the targeted people have committed any crimes, let alone done anything else punishable by death under U.S. law.

The Obama administration believes that the power to kill Americans abroad using the drones cannot be challenged or reviewed by any U.S. court. Whether a U.S. citizen living abroad lives or dies turns on the whim of some undesignated and unnamed "high ranking official" who determines that the hapless victim is an "imminent" threat to U.S. interests.

According to the briefing paper, a threat can be "imminent" and qualify for drone targeting even if the "high ranking official" does not know and cannot tell when or even whether the drone target is going to do anything threatening. The target can be approved even without knowing what interest is "imminently" threatened.

None of the so-called "pro-life" advocates in the Arkansas legislature who have been so gung-ho about the sanctity of every fetus have even proposed a non-binding resolution about the premeditated killing of U.S. citizens by our own government. That speaks volumes about their so-called "pro-life" ethics.

A person doesn't pose a lethal threat merely because he or she is disagreeable. But the Obama administration apparently believes that any American who sympathizes with Al Qaeda deserves to be summarily murdered.

Let's be clear. The drone policy isn't about making war. It is murder using an aerial vehicle remotely controlled by a CIA operator in no danger of being harmed by the targeted person. This is murder with impunity and immunity, terrorism by another name, courtesy of President Barack Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, in our name.

Judge Wendell L. Griffen is a circuit court judge and pastor of New Millennium Church. Max Brantley is on vacation.

Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Wendell Griffen

  • Obama at Morehouse

    During President Obama's recent speech to the black men who graduated from Morehouse College he uttered this amazing statement: "Nobody cares how tough your upbringing was. Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination. And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you've gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and they overcame them."
    • May 30, 2013
  • The moral case for tax fairness

    The Arkansas legislature is considering two dramatically different views of tax reduction. One approach benefits the wealthiest Arkansans who already pay the lowest effective tax rates in the state. An alternative approach gives the most tax relief to the middle and low-income Arkansas families who already pay the highest effective tax rates in the state. This is not only a policy choice, it's also a moral choice.
    • Apr 4, 2013
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • Banned in 2018

    Here's some arcana reeking of 2017 that I'm banning from consideration, attention, even out-loud mention in 2018. I'm unfriending all this 2017-reminding shit. It's dead to me in 2018.
    • Jan 11, 2018

Latest in Guest Writer

  • Rapert's posture

    We must not allow state Sen. Jason Rapert (R-Conway) to frame the lawsuits generated against his placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds as an assault upon Christianity itself — or, as he does when he's pretending that the monument serves a secular function, an assault upon American "heritage and history."
    • Aug 9, 2018
  • Don't arm teachers

    It's been roughly five months since 14 high school students and three staff members were shot and killed in their school in Parkland, Fla.
    • Jul 12, 2018
  • The cult of Trump

    Nearly 40 years ago our country was introduced to two major phenomena centering around cults: namely, the Moonies and the Shiite Muslims. There were others, as well, and I soon became fascinated with the dynamics of cults and cult leaders (both religious and secular) in general — leading me to read a number of books and articles, some even written by those who had been deprogrammed after spending time in a cult.
    • Jun 21, 2018
  • More »
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation