Home > Uncategorized > U.S. Drones Recognize No Miranda Rights

U.S. Drones Recognize No Miranda Rights

Voice of Russia
July 16, 2012

Do drones know Miranda rights?
Dmitry Babich

====

Under Obama, American drones reportedly killed hundreds of suspects, destroying in the process thousands of civilians, with only ONE MORE PERSON being put in the infamous Guantanamo camp, which “humanistic” candidate Obama had promised to close during his electoral campaign.

Now, how would THIS president Obama react to some unknown “militants” (let’s use the Western media’s preferred term) setting off bombs near U.S. government buildings in the country’s capital every day, killing children on their way to school in the process? And this is what happens in Damascus. How would Obama treat the “combatants” who make “targeted liquidations” of U.S. army officers? (“Targeted liquidations” is the term used by the French daily Le Figaro to describe the drive-by shootings of Syrian general Mohammed Omar al-Derbas and colonels Abdel Karim al-Raei and Fouad Shaaban, assassinated before the bombardments of Homs and Houla)?

====

During a short press conference before meeting UN envoy Koffi Annan today, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov made some emotional remarks about the “moral” accusations leveled at Russia and China by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While not mentioning madam secretary’s name, Lavrov said it is “incorrect” to put all the blame for the situation in Syria on Russia and China, not to speak about “the threats that they [Russia and China] will pay for it.”

Lavrov was obviously referring to Mrs. Clinton’s recent statement at the so called “Friends of Syria” conference in France. Mrs. Clinton said there Russia and China would “pay a price” for allegedly supporting Annan’s regime.

One should not shy away from moral dilemmas, but one is automatically confronted with the question: who are the judges? What makes president Obama and secretary Clinton qualified to pass moral judgments on the indeed intricate problem of the moral responsibility of the Russian or, for that matter, Syrian government? What enables the Western press to take such a high moral ground on “Russia’s responsibility” for developments in Syria (with the questions of the moral responsibility of the Syrian opposition and its foreign sponsors wisely avoided). The question is made ever more timely by the fact that Mrs. Clinton in recent months has returned to some of the “tough” policies of former president George W. Bush, who had based his approach to the Middle East on unlimited use of warfare (something Mr. Obama now euphemistically calls “leaving all options on the table”).

“It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton, who started her career as foreign secretary stressing a certain contrast between herself and the former president George W. Bush, in the end of her tenure returned to some of Bush’s approaches,” notes Yelena Suponina, the head of department of Asian and Middle eastern Studies at the Russian Institute for Strategic Research. “Obviously, there are some patterns in American Middle East policies that cannot be changed for long.”

And were they ever changed? If we believe the recently published stories in American media, some of the morally questionable traits of this policy in fact never changed. A series of articles published in the New York Times reveals even a certain stiffening of the White House’s approach. For example, Obama in fact adopted a “take no prisoners policy” towards terrorist suspects in the Middle East. Under Obama, American drones reportedly killed hundreds of suspects, destroying in the process thousands of civilians, with only ONE MORE PERSON being put in the infamous Guantanamo camp, which “humanistic” candidate Obama had promised to close during his electoral campaign.

“While scores of suspects have been killed under Mr. Obama, only one has been taken into American custody, and the president has balked at adding new prisoners to Guantanamo,” NYT’s Jo Becker and Scott Shane wrote in their review of Obama’s drone strategy.

Both authors point out that Obama’s “killing lists” got longer and longer despite the fact that Obama’s America did not suffer from large-scale terrorist acts, unlike George W. Bush’s America which went through the 9/11 disaster in 2001. “What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough,” the New York Times kindly notes, adding that Mr. Obama’s own system of evaluating civilian casualties “in effect counts all military-age males in strike zone as combatants.” Obviously, the U.S. is still at war with terrorism, despite having had no hostile action on its territory for the last 10 years.

Now, how would THIS president Obama react to some unknown “militants” (let’s use the Western media’s preferred term) setting off bombs near U.S. government buildings in the country’s capital every day, killing children on their way to school in the process? And this is what happens in Damascus. How would Obama treat the “combatants” who make “targeted liquidations” of U.S. army officers? (“Targeted liquidations” is the term used by the French daily Le Figaro to describe the drive-by shootings of Syrian general Mohammed Omar al-Derbas and colonels Abdel Karim al-Raei and Fouad Shaaban, assassinated before the bombardments of Homs and Houla)? How would he react to someone’s taking a whole detachment of American servicemen as hostages? (And such was the Free Syrian Army’s action that unleashed the battle for Homs).

So, how would Obama react to such actions? The answer would be: drones at least, nuclear bombs at most. But somehow Obama and Clinton deny the same luxury of self-defense to Assad. Is it just because his bombs are not as smart as American ones? Yes, American bombs are smarter, but smart weapons put their owners before ever more terrible moral choices. The New York Times reports that Obama, when deciding to “liquidate” Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban, knew that Mehsud’s wife and in-laws were in the same home. But the American president still preferred “the killing option.” In a way, his moral position in this situation is even more compromised than that of Assad’s artillerists, who at least don’t know for sure which family their shells are going to kill.

Amnesty International looks somewhat less smart than American bombs when it requires Assad, in the current situation, to hold “fair trials” for terrorists. As if the U.S., with its death squads of drones and “signature strikes” against “suspicious compounds,” bothers to have such trials. Gone are the days when former Vice President Richard Cheney suspected Obama of “giving the terrorists the rights of Americans, letting them lawyer up and reading them their Miranda rights.” Drones know no lawyers and “smart missiles” recognize no Miranda rights.

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. rosemerry
    July 17, 2012 at 6:19 am

    Poor Miranda is as forgotten as the Constitution.
    “leaving all options on the table” never seems to include negotiations and peace. Hillary Clinton is supposedly part of the dipolmacy area, not the Pentagon
    “Self defense” is not allowed to those attacked, but only the aggressors, as in Israel’s illegal attacks on Palestinians, always justified by the Sec of State.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 483 other followers

%d bloggers like this: