Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

It should be noted that some people believe that governments should also be held accountable for killing innocents that are foreign citizens. I realise that "but he was a citizen" holds some cachet with the American national story, but really it shouldn't. An innocent is an innocent, and the concept of 'collateral damage' has no place outside total war.

View on HN

That is sort of an interesting issue. "Oh but he is a Citizen!, you see. Constitution something, something...".

If he wasn't a citizen and just a local goat herder. Meh, who cares. Ok, kill him. That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. Now even as far as Constitution goes, this is wrong. But what if the piece of paper signed couple of hundred years ago, allowed it. Would that make it ok? What about all the other people in those countries, murdered by US pilots from Langley by a push of the button.

"Oh but we don't deliberate target civilians, we are an exception, not like those other terrorists, these are all accidents" everyone would chime in. But are they? How can we be sure? If the contracts to build drones and the jobs involved in killing terrorists are paid related to how many terrorists are killed. Pretty sure soon enough the'd find way to target as many civilians as necessary in order to keep busy. An added benefit is that each person killed probably spawns a couple dozen future terrorists. Can't imagine a parent, sister, child of a victim not wanting to inflict likewise damage to the country that did this to them.

That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions.

It also damages the reputation of the US throughout the world. That has effects on US business, and US citizens when they travel.

The point of 'he is a citizen' here isn't 'who cares about goat herders', I think, but more 'see, this government will kill anyone, not just foreigners or terrorists'. If the government claims some foreigner was a terrorist and trots out some constructed evidence, how can you know any different? But when they murder someone who literally could have lived down the street from you without due process, maybe that brings it a little closer to home, and you start thinking about how questionable the whole process is. It becomes clearer given that context that they could do this to literally anyone, and clearer just how difficult it would be to stop it.

At least, that's what I think is supposed to go on here.

>If he wasn't a citizen and just a local goat herder. Meh, who cares. Ok, kill him. That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse.

Well then, I'm guessing you're happy to know that isn't the thought process. Otherwise al Alwaki would be alive today.

There is a human reason for it. People identify with their tribe. Everyone is guilty of it. It is easier to think of foreigners as silhouettes, mere background material for your own play. The Israelis doing it with the Palestinians. The Germans did it with the Jews. In both situations, the citizens of those countries are complicit in whatever happens. Hell, all the rage that I hear on this site right now about civil liberties being violated by TSA is unsurprising to anyone who travels to this country from a third world nation. The funny thing? That has been happening for decades.

The Israelis generally decry crimes against the Palestinian people, but they are constantly targeted and take desperate measures every now and then. But it's far from ignored or celebrated by the average Israeli.

In this sense America is more of a terrorist State than Israel. Any heavy handed action from the Israeli government faces serious resistance and upheaval from its own populace. Americans largely don't care and you'll find more people justifying it than opposing it.

"generally decry"? I am curious. We are talking about a country which calls itself a democracy, yes? If there is a majority that has a problem with what the government does, it is not clear to me why said majority doesn't take the matter into their own hands and vote a government that, you know does not indulge in "heavy handed action".

Of course, if we are talking about anecdotal evidence that the people around you are opposed to crimes against the Palestinian people, carry on.

Heavy handed action does lose you elections in Israel, which is by many measures more of a democracy than the US or the UK. There is no two-party gridlock. Parties appear and disappear. Compromises are made, settlements have been given up.

However they need to draw a line when their very existence is not respected.

I honestly don't think anyone could realistically do any better than they are doing, in their position. Lots of people would not accept anything other than Israeli self-destruction.

> the concept of 'collateral damage' has no place outside total war

So damn true. People forget that we really haven't been truly "at war" in the traditional, collateral-damage-is-to-be-expected sense for almost a decade! The Iraq War was over in weeks. Same with Afghanistan. Since then it has been an occupation. Big difference.

I think that the whole War on Terror thing has largely been spun as a "war" because in war you accept things like collateral damage. Never mind that "War on Vague Concept" is utterly absurd! Imagine if we used drone strikes to take out cartel bosses in the asinine "War on Drugs." Ridiculous. Makes me mad.

Maybe it shouldn't, but there are reasons it holds more weight. For example, there is some debate about whether the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens, or all people. Point being, there is no question whatsoever whether it applies to U.S. citizens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com