Of course, legal and moral are very different issues, and it depends on who you’re asking, doesn’t it? We know that attorney John Yoo declared torture to be legal, and I doubt if anyone was asking him whether it’s moral. So, the answer to both questions about the kill list, is going to vary. If you’re asking me…the answer to both is an unequivocal ‘no’.[D]ocuments show that the deadly [Afghanistan killing] missions were not just viewed as a last resort to prevent attacks, but were in fact part of everyday life in the guerilla war in Afghanistan.
[A secret NATO list], which included up to 750 people at times, proves for the first time that NATO didn't just target the Taliban leadership, but also eliminated mid- and lower-level members of the group on a large scale.
[...]
[T]he kill lists raise legal and moral questions that extend far beyond Afghanistan. Can a democracy be allowed to kill its enemies in a targeted manner when the objective is not to prevent an imminent attack? And does the goal of eliminating as many Taliban as possible justify killing innocent bystanders?
Spiegel
And now, with these documents, we know just how many civilians are considered weight enough to call in a headquarters chief when putting a name on the NATO kill list: eleven. Up to 10, don’t bother headquarters. Just kill ‘em. And, even at that, “civilian” is defined rather loosely:
Bodyguards, drivers and male attendants were viewed as enemy combatants, whether or not they actually were. Only women, children and the elderly were treated as civilians.
No comments:
Post a Comment