“Drones are here to stay,” explained the New Yorker’s Mayer. “So being for or against their use isn’t really where the interesting controversy is at this point. The argument is over who is a legitimate target, how that is decided, what legal framework covers this sort of warfare, and how many innocent lives can be justified as so-called ‘collateral damage’ in a drone strike—morally, legally, and politically.”
Some of the most resourceful reporters in the news business have pushed hard for more access to information about this remote-controlled battle and a few have made some progress. But too often, journalists have settled for only meager morsels to fashion their stories. A more whole-hearted pushback is in order, with top newsrooms banding together, backed by their legal departments, to try to force a more substantive and open public policy debate on whom and how the US decides to kill with the push of a button.
We're about to lose a war to these people, yet we continue to act as if they are stone-age dwellers. Tara finds it hard to believe that "Pakistani stringers" can reliably report on actions in their own community, immediately assuming that kill figures must be exaggerated. She writes as if Western journalists have a monopoly on truth. "Because it is hard for journalists to bear witness, it is difficult for citizens to get a clear picture of what is being done in their name," she writes. Yet the kill numbers reported for each incident are in the 20s. How much exaggeration could be going on? Sounds about right to me. Tara negates the fact that American journalism is bought and paid for. Her own publication was given a large grant -- some would say bought off -- so that it would cease its investigations into certain corrupt financial activities. It seems to me as if Tara is much like the CIA's drone operators, sitting in an ivory tower half a world away making decisions about people she's never encountered. Of all our American faults, hubris lies right at the top.
#1 Posted by Bill Andivey, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 08:40 AM
Collateral damage --- the sudden horrific killing of innocent civilians, in countries where population density in cities and towns is much higher than in the United States ---- is obviously creating countless long, new memories, somewhere beyond the view of our American news cycle. It isn't seen. it isn't discussed. At least not in America. But others do remember -- painfully and vividly.
#2 Posted by Jon Adams, CJR on Sun 22 May 2011 at 11:21 AM
This video shows Obama telling his side regarding drones and killing americans, due process, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVMWRuQd54&feature=plcp
#3 Posted by honestgrifter, CJR on Sun 9 Sep 2012 at 11:57 AM
The USA wishes to stop terrorism by committing terrorist acts against civilians in other countries, with which it is not at war. Not a good plan. The way to avoid terrorism is to be good to people in other countries, not to bomb them.
#4 Posted by Sam, CJR on Tue 23 Oct 2012 at 11:41 PM
SOUNDS LIKE HE CAN KILL YOU ,JUST WITH HIS POWER.
#5 Posted by SMOKEPOLE, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 04:23 AM