Now We Know: War Is Murder
By Anthony Gregory • Thursday February 7, 2013 10:33 AM PDT • 20 Comments
The response to the leaked Obama administration document explaining its rationalization for targeted drone killings of American citizens has proven louder than I expected. Obama’s kill list was reported very early in his first term. In October 2011 I wrote about his summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki. A few months ago it was reported that the administration intended this program to be a staple feature of national security policy in the form of its “disposition matrix.” I suppose this document has finally woken people up to the fact that the president claims the authority to kill whoever he wants on his own say-so.
The reaction has also been a little more interesting than I expected. Both the left and right are split on the matter. Some of this can be attributed to partisanship. But in their responses, these critics and defenders of the policy have brought to bear some important deeper principles.
Some on the left defend their president with the insistence he has broken no ground. In terms of procedure, I don’t agree. On the narrow question of unilaterally executed preemptive targeted killings of U.S. citizens abroad whom the administration deems might pose a threat, Obama has taken things further than Bush did. Yet even if the argument is that Obama has done nothing worse than Bush, I don’t see that as a very credible progressive defense of the president, given that the progressives were out in the street calling for Bush’s impeachment last decade. Some liberals have gone even further, arguing that targeted drone killings are preferable to sending American troops to die in a gun fight. If you assume the morality of the war on terror and the propriety of killing these targets, I suppose there is an internal consistency in that position, but it sure does assume more than these folks were willing to assume several years ago.
I find the conservative divisions even more interesting. John Bolton has rigorously defended the drone killings and Senator Lindsey Graham says conservatives must defend Obama’s policy against “libertarians and the left.” Yesterday Mark Levin went on and on about how Obama’s policy is perfectly legitimate, totally consistent with, say, Reagan’s approach toward Libya, where the U.S. dropped bombs to kill Qaddafi and Americans properly “didn’t give a damn” about any civilians killed in the process.
Mike Huckabee, in sharp contrast, has been arguing for several days now that this policy is tyrannical, pleading conservatives to realize that an even worse president might one day capture these powers and turn them against totally peaceful Americans such as gun owners. Back in 2009, Glenn Beck condemned the targeted killing list before very many other pundits even took notice. We see these concerns echoed today throughout much of the anti-Obama conservative media. Again, I think some of the outrage is partisan. But not all is. There is a genuine concern, apparently, that the president would wield this power over a class of people thought to be more robustly protected by the Constitution.
On the questions of the propriety of this policy, the frightening presidential power grab it represents, the morality and the legal boundaries stretched by Obama, I must agree wholeheartedly with his detractors. But there is another general sense in which his defenders have a point. They argue that Obama’s targeted killing of American citizens abroad whom he deems terrorists is not really on that different a plane from a policy of targeting non-citizens in the same way. This is correct, even Constitutionally, since the protections of people’s life, liberty, and property rights against violations without due process applies to all people touched by the federal government, not just citizens. They further argue that many of the precedents to this policy were set by Bush—limited targeted killings of terror suspects, the claim of indefinite executive detention powers over American citizens captured anywhere, and the preemptive “Bush doctrine” of hitting people abroad even before the threat has materialized. This is true enough.
But where I think Obama’s defenders are most correct is in saying the line between targeted killings of “terrorists,” including the acceptance of collateral damage, and war itself is not so clear-cut. This morning Huckabee attempted to argue that the Iraq war was much more legitimate than the killing of al-Awlaki, based on congressional procedure. Yet both Bush and Obama have claimed extraordinary powers by virtue of the AUMF from 2001 and the Constitutional nature of the war presidency. There’s a reason Dick Cheney urged Americans to give him credit for Obama’s drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. The reason is that he deserves some credit for it.
Even more to the point, if you defend the type of devastation Bush unleashed on Iraq in 2003, it seems odd that you would quibble with targeted drone killings. Bush killed thousands in just the first few months, and none of these people were any sort of threat to the United States. Even more important, most of the people killed were just minding their own business before they were blown to pieces. Morally, they were victims of premeditated presidential murder just as much as Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the sixteen-year old from Denver whom Obama slaughtered through drone bombing, was. When you bomb a neighborhood into rubble, you know it’s going to kill innocent people, and those deaths are on you.
At the same time, Obama directly approving the targeting and summary execution of this teenager, whose biggest crime according to the administration appears to be having a bad father, does indeed deserve special condemnation, and those who claim to dislike broad presidential war powers but who nevertheless support Obama should come to terms with the fact that their favorite emperor will always be remembered for this especially gruesome and bloodthirsty hit. Obama picking John Brennan for CIA director, the Bush-era drone program architect who calls it “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense,” should give all Obama supporters more than a bit of pause.
Once you accept the basic moral principles of modern war and the broad presidential powers claimed by every president since at least Harry Truman, Obama’s move appears to be a frightening pushing of the envelope in terms of pure procedure, but also just par for the course. The imperial presidency claims the authority to drop nuclear weapons on cities. Surely a man who can do this and call the act legal is being no more bold in ordering a hit on anyone, including American citizens, wherever they happen to be.
And this is where we get to the crux of the matter. Obama’s detractors are right to call him a tyrant and war criminal. They are right to condemn his actions and power grab. They are right to call his actions murder. Where they are inconsistent is in trying to say what Bush did, or what Clinton did, or what Reagan did, was somehow not murder. All modern U.S. wars are murder. They all involve the predictable slaughter of innocent people, people no less innocent than the thousands butchered on 9/11. They all involve a president claiming the authority to choose who lives or dies on his say so alone. Obama’s program is more intimate, more personal, and in that sense a little more dystopian and frightening. But from Nagasaki to Baghdad, the victims of presidential serial killing cry from their graves not to be dismissed as the casualties of mature war policy or “legal” killing.
There is no more awesome power than the power to wipe out scores, hundreds, or thousands of people with a pen stroke, and presidents have that power. If that isn’t despotism, nothing else is.
Conservatives genuinely concerned about the moral and procedural implications of Obama’s drone killings, and they should be, might want to rethink much of what they have internalized about war in general. Liberals who were outraged about Bush should recognize that if anyone deserved to be impeached and thrown out of office for crimes against decency, traditional legal restraints on presidential power, and war crimes, Obama is one such man.
Tags: American History, Bill of Rights, CIA, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Law, Presidential Power, The State, War 
I opposed Reagan’s bombing in Libya for a number of reasons: the USA was not at war with Libya, federal laws banned assassinations of foreign leaders, the bombing would kill many innocent persons, and the bombing was unlikely to kill Gaddafi.
Most of Bush’s drone killings were within Iraq and Afghanistan while we were at war. I objected to the wars but not the choice of weapons. The few drone attacks outside those countries were just over the border in Iran which was supplying Iraq with fighters and terrorists. That bent the legality line, but probably didn’t break it.
Obama’s drone attacks, in contrast, have been in countries with whom we are not at war such as Pakistan and Yemen. His attacks show a remarkable lack of selectivity. They also anger the leaders of other nations, and Obama doesn’t care about how that can disrupt our foreign policy (probably because he doesn’t have one). Obama also doesn’t care that the drone attacks probably generate at least two new Taliban or Al-Qaeda members for each person killed. Obama, who publicly bragged about the drone bombing process, seems to get a rush from writing down a name and checking it off after a successful kill. If an arrested mass murderer felt that way, he would be sent to the heavy security ward of a mental institution.
MingoV | Feb 7, 2013 | Reply
Will America be able to handle the blowback when it occurs?
Augustbrhm | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Yep, all true.
That the Republican-dominated House of Representatives would ignore impeachment of Obama for these crimes is astonishing, particularly in light of the historically recorded zeal with which a similarly-dominated House of Representatives impeached Clinton for mere extra-marital sex and lying about it.
David | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
I’m confused why a declaration of war is relevant at all when that declaration is itself massively immoral. So as long as we say we’re at war we can kill as many civilians as we want and it’s justified? That makes zero sense.
Brandon | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Mingo,
Everything you say about Obama is true, but just because Bush did his killing “while we were at war” doesn’t make him any less of a criminal. How many thousands of Iraqis did Bush murder in a “war” based on blatant lies?
David,
It’s not really that astonishing when you consider that for your typical Republican extra-marital sex is a greater evil than state-sanctioned murder.
Joe | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
This is a fine and much-needed article. I am a progressive/leftist who voted for Green party nominee Cynthis McKinney in 2008 and now refuse to vote for any imperialists of any party anymore. Like many progressives, I have been critical of Obama since before his 2008 campaign. I also opposed the foreign policies of every President since JFK (I was 12 years old, then). U.S. Presidents have been committing war crimes and mass murder since FDR ordered the bombing of German cities in 1943. As Noam Chomsky has said: “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war [WW II] American president would have been hanged.” We should have impeached George W. Bush and we should impeach Obomber (as I call him).
REDPILLED | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Once war is by definition endless and the entire world the battlefield, enemies are whom you say they are. Charges, trials, legal rigamarole and citizenship are irrelevant; they clutter up the process, take time, and imperil national security.
jack | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Some people believe that all war is immoral. That belief is as foolish as stating that all violence is immoral. Self-defense is moral. National defense is moral. But, even moral wars cause civilian deaths. (Similarly, self-defense sometimes can cause bystander deaths.) The problem is deciding what circumstances justify national defense-based wars.
I believe that the only war (or conflict) the USA fought that came close to being justified was the War of 1812. That war could have been avoided by using ship convoys and/or putting marines on merchant ships to prevent impressment by the British Navy. All our other wars were unnecessary and therefore immoral.
MingoV | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
@REDPILLED: I’m sorry you could not see your way clear to voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson instead of Ms. McKinney, but I applaud you for abandoning the Demos and GOP, and I agree with you completely that both GW Bush and Mr. Obama committed impeachable offenses that were far more egregious than Mr. Clinton’s lying under oath about sex. As far as the likelihood of impeachment, though, I am not optimistic. The Congress has proven itself craven and too easily distracted by irrelevant matters. I also doubt that, were the House GOP (and conscientious Demos) to grow spines sufficient to impeach Mr. Obama, the Senate Democrats would let him walk. The 22nd Amendment rid of us of Mr. Bush and company despite Congress’ reticence. Our best chance to defend the Constitution in Mr. Obama’s case (in the sense that such defense includes removing by any Constitutional means available a President who very much needs impeachment) came this past election. The voters dropped the ball. If Mr. Romney had been saying the same things and making the same pledges as Mr. Johnson did, I would have voted for Mr. Romney. But the GOP candidate looked like more of the same, just wearing a red tie to Obama’s blue. Under the circumstances, I was proud to vote for Mr. Johnson and would do it again. I hope, should Mr. Johnson run again in 2016, you will join me.
James Anderson Merritt | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
“Some people believe that all war is immoral. That belief is as foolish as stating that all violence is immoral. Self-defense is moral. National defense is moral. But, even moral wars cause civilian deaths. (Similarly, self-defense sometimes can cause bystander deaths.) The problem is deciding what circumstances justify national defense-based wars.”
I think self-defense is moral, but you must target only aggressors, and should be held liable for any innocents harmed. Government don’t do this.
“I believe that the only war (or conflict) the USA fought that came close to being justified was the War of 1812. That war could have been avoided by using ship convoys and/or putting marines on merchant ships to prevent impressment by the British Navy. All our other wars were unnecessary and therefore immoral.”
I agree with you on every U.S. war—except 1812. That was a mixed bag at best, since the U.S. invaded Canada early on, as part of the agenda that many American leaders shared to conquer that territory and make it part of the U.S.
Anthony Gregory | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
I see you think the War of 1812 could have been avoided, so we agree more than I thought at first glance! Thanks for the great comment.
Anthony Gregory | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
It’s useful to make the point that Obama’s policy is the same as that of Bush, but insofar as that simply confirms the one-party-state, at least so far as foreign policy is concerned, it doesn’t get us far along a path to a resolution.
There is a major point of distinction, though, that should be drawn between Obama, Bush 2, and all the Presidents that went before him. These two have moved to a level of dispensation with international law that puts them in a class by themselves. It’s not hyperbolic to say that for these two, the law has been anything they say it is. Prior Presidents, while breaking laws, were much more circumspect, and did it in secret, in denial, in the shadows, instead of openly, smugly, and in the expectation of impunity.
One law for all was always an illusion, but there is a large gap between a situation where crimes are perpetrated and denied, and a situation where the law is blandly and openly flaunted, or even ridiculed. In a legal framework that is occasionally ignored but that is officially supported, at least sometimes, laws will be observed, by some actors,
and a certain amount of order can be maintained. If the legal framework is openly and casually broken by the greatest power and greatest beneficiary of that framework, then the law falls, and the result is that actors with less to gain from maintaining international stability will also ignore laws, such as they are, and order fails.
The whole fragile enterprise depends on the most important member of the system pretending that it actually means something. As soon as that stops- and Bush and Obama, with their contempt for international law have gone a long way in this direction- as soon as that ends, the system is over, and we’re back to 1647, and there is no longer any law at all.
Duglarri | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Brandon, I think that it’s relevant because it’s more difficult to get Congress, which is theoretically the most responsible to citizens, to vote to declare war before fighting one. The reason why we never get a declaration anymore is because the government would almost never be able to get us into a war, so now they just skip it. It seems that Congress is willing to abdicate its control because no one will blame them for war’s awful consequences.
David Sullivan | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
Interestingly, from an excellent read, “JFK and the Unspeakable”, JFK started out as a Cold Warrior but then turned and became a peace monger. He refused to send troops to bail out the failing Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he refused to launch a war on Russia and Cuba against the advice of his military advisors, and he fully intended to completely pull out of Vietnam upon his return from his fatal Dallas trip. He also started back-channel communications with Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro. If he had been allowed to continue, I think it would have been a better world. But the “Unspeakable” as the book described the neocons and national security state, would not have it and had him assassinated. LBJ is said in another book to have directed the coverup afterwards and then escalated the Vietnam war.
buddyc.22 | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
I can not reconcile ANY war the United States has been prosecuted, including the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812, with a consistent ethical definition of self defense.
Justus Ranvier | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
So did Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Personally, I will never pay attention to that organization again.
Mike Carey | Feb 12, 2013 | Reply