I no longer think Trump weighs right & wrong when making decisions, and apparently his team is following his lead. Unless there are factors we are unaware of (possible) this was morally wrong. And the suggestion that sometimes we must throw out the rule book (think waterboarding) because the problem/risk is so great is also morally repugnant. You can justify any behavior if you twist logic, reason and scruples hard enough, but wrong is wrong. I once argued absolute right & wrong with my brother. I asked if it was ever ok to throw a child into a fire (odd, but we were camping and there were a fire and kids at hand). He responded "Well, in some cultures.....) No, even if the law allows, some behaviors are just wrong.
What if being moral guarantees your annihilation, while being immoral gives you a good shot at survival? What do you choose?
I like to think that I take the high road when confronted with moral choices, but I do see that there are situations where doing so would be what Gad Saad calls "empathetic suicide."
I'm fairly certain that when push comes to shove, my will to live will be stronger than my desire to do what's right. But even then, I would have limits. If you told me to kill my cat so that I might live, I may choose to die -- because I wouldn't want to live, knowing what I'd done.
I suppose the intent is critical here. Was the second attack intended to completely destroy the boat so it could not be used, or to kill the survivors? We will never know the answer, but I suspect that if the boat had been completely destroyed, the army wouldn't have bothered to waste resources to kill two drug carriers. Wouldn't they have drowned, anyway?
This topic will get full review of right and left. I hope it gets full unbiased review of not only right and wrong but legal and illegal. I know little about maritime law but I have read that ships that are not sailing under a flag, in international waters, is not protected by any country. Do a scenario, if this were a truck hauling arms across the desert (or even a wedding where terrorists were) and a certain President (not this one) called for drone strikes only to have secondary drone strikes hit as rescue has started, would their be a fuss? This case and the case about drug cartel boats, declared terrorists, double taps, etc. need to be done. I should not be done in front of the public and public opinion. Wartime law, International law, Maritime law, rules of engagement, declarations of terrorists, etc, is all too much for be tried in the court of public opinion…including mine…in which I find this action to protect the USA from the onslaught of cartels and drugs worthy…IMHO.
There was not a “fuss” when Obama ordered hundreds of drone strikes, when rescuers were hit on the “2nd tap” (what an innocuous phrase) and in some cases American citizens were hit. It is MSM not covering then but now covering similar events . Why the distinction?
If the argument is "He/She/They did it too," that's whataboutism.
If the same thing has been done in the past it was wrong then too. I didn't write during the Obama administration so can't be criticized for not calling attention to it.
It is possible to criticize the media AND say what is being done now is wrong.
I won't let the media's double standard define morality for me.
It's not a question of trust or what other's have done, it's a question of right or wrong.
If the argument is "He/She/They did it too," that's whataboutism.
If the same thing has been done in the past it was wrong then too. I didn't write during the Obama administration so can't be criticized for not calling attention to it.
There's both a legal and moral debate going on. I am only commenting on the moral one here.
Thanks for the replies. My argument is not whataboutism as far as look it was done here, here and here. It is about the coverage… lack of even balanced coverage. The moral question during conflict is as thin as a razor’s edge and why ,while I understand your point, I believe it comes to a wartime/ conflict legal question. War, conflict and taking of life is morally wrong but still legal: assisted end of life, abortion and death sentences are legal too. Are those killings morally correct? Are they anymore morally correct then taking out designated narco-terrorists on a second tap when many in the military claim a 2nd tap is standard procedure. Are there degrees to the morality of taking lives? These instances are ok b/c society has polled 80/20 in favor, and these are not and this during conflict certainly is not b/c the press reported it as a-moral. MSM, legacy media and major cable stations are making this political b/c of Trump. Not previously questioned… legally or morally. Big question that needs legal decision.
I agree that wartime has different rules but the fact is that this isn't war. The government has not followed any legal processes to make it a war or to justify the actions.
Even if this were war, "double tapping" "sailors" after their ship has been sunk is illegal and immoral. Once a ship sinks, the crew becomes shipwrecked or survivors. International law (like Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions) prohibits attacking them.
The issue of press coverage is entirely separate from the issue of morality. I don't care what the press thinks or does. I'm making the judgement myself. I also don't care what "standard procedure" is or what the polls say. There is about right and wrong, not popular opinion or arguments that "we always do this."
Ron Paul did a drop on this. Quite honestly, I don't know what to think, but it all looks very murky. We invaded Iraq under bullshit, helped orchestrate the overthrow of Gaddafi, with one writer stating it was recommended by a Clinton staffer for her presidential bid. Then, when it went south, the broken vessel was left, and women paid the price. On the other hand, I know how a war looks has changed. I caught a clip of Bertrand Russell (the famous analytical philosopher) stating, in so many words, that Bismarck started WWI because he had new war toys he wanted to use. Considering that resulted in unsuspecting troops that hadn't gotten the memo that the look of war had changed, being mowed down. I do think a flow of drugs into the country is an act of war of some sort, used to destabilize society, just like the Opium Wars in China were used to destabilize a fragile monarchy.
As it looks like SCOTUS looks to further disembowel the unelected administrative state, I hope Congress crawls back its power.
I no longer think Trump weighs right & wrong when making decisions, and apparently his team is following his lead. Unless there are factors we are unaware of (possible) this was morally wrong. And the suggestion that sometimes we must throw out the rule book (think waterboarding) because the problem/risk is so great is also morally repugnant. You can justify any behavior if you twist logic, reason and scruples hard enough, but wrong is wrong. I once argued absolute right & wrong with my brother. I asked if it was ever ok to throw a child into a fire (odd, but we were camping and there were a fire and kids at hand). He responded "Well, in some cultures.....) No, even if the law allows, some behaviors are just wrong.
Well said!
What if being moral guarantees your annihilation, while being immoral gives you a good shot at survival? What do you choose?
I like to think that I take the high road when confronted with moral choices, but I do see that there are situations where doing so would be what Gad Saad calls "empathetic suicide."
I'm fairly certain that when push comes to shove, my will to live will be stronger than my desire to do what's right. But even then, I would have limits. If you told me to kill my cat so that I might live, I may choose to die -- because I wouldn't want to live, knowing what I'd done.
That's an important, and in some ways unanswerable, question. Or at the very least something each person must ask for themselves.
That said, I don't think killing defenseless people floating in the ocean rises to the level of suicidal empathy.
I suppose the intent is critical here. Was the second attack intended to completely destroy the boat so it could not be used, or to kill the survivors? We will never know the answer, but I suspect that if the boat had been completely destroyed, the army wouldn't have bothered to waste resources to kill two drug carriers. Wouldn't they have drowned, anyway?
This topic will get full review of right and left. I hope it gets full unbiased review of not only right and wrong but legal and illegal. I know little about maritime law but I have read that ships that are not sailing under a flag, in international waters, is not protected by any country. Do a scenario, if this were a truck hauling arms across the desert (or even a wedding where terrorists were) and a certain President (not this one) called for drone strikes only to have secondary drone strikes hit as rescue has started, would their be a fuss? This case and the case about drug cartel boats, declared terrorists, double taps, etc. need to be done. I should not be done in front of the public and public opinion. Wartime law, International law, Maritime law, rules of engagement, declarations of terrorists, etc, is all too much for be tried in the court of public opinion…including mine…in which I find this action to protect the USA from the onslaught of cartels and drugs worthy…IMHO.
Re: your scenario.
I would certainly hope there'd be "a fuss." Killing wounded adversaries is not a moral act.
There was not a “fuss” when Obama ordered hundreds of drone strikes, when rescuers were hit on the “2nd tap” (what an innocuous phrase) and in some cases American citizens were hit. It is MSM not covering then but now covering similar events . Why the distinction?
I'll repeat my response to your previous comment.
This is a question of right or wrong.
If the argument is "He/She/They did it too," that's whataboutism.
If the same thing has been done in the past it was wrong then too. I didn't write during the Obama administration so can't be criticized for not calling attention to it.
It is possible to criticize the media AND say what is being done now is wrong.
I won't let the media's double standard define morality for me.
Do you trust Matt Taibbi? https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/democrats-press-gloss-over-original?r=l2zts&utm_medium=ios
It's not a question of trust or what other's have done, it's a question of right or wrong.
If the argument is "He/She/They did it too," that's whataboutism.
If the same thing has been done in the past it was wrong then too. I didn't write during the Obama administration so can't be criticized for not calling attention to it.
There's both a legal and moral debate going on. I am only commenting on the moral one here.
Thanks for the replies. My argument is not whataboutism as far as look it was done here, here and here. It is about the coverage… lack of even balanced coverage. The moral question during conflict is as thin as a razor’s edge and why ,while I understand your point, I believe it comes to a wartime/ conflict legal question. War, conflict and taking of life is morally wrong but still legal: assisted end of life, abortion and death sentences are legal too. Are those killings morally correct? Are they anymore morally correct then taking out designated narco-terrorists on a second tap when many in the military claim a 2nd tap is standard procedure. Are there degrees to the morality of taking lives? These instances are ok b/c society has polled 80/20 in favor, and these are not and this during conflict certainly is not b/c the press reported it as a-moral. MSM, legacy media and major cable stations are making this political b/c of Trump. Not previously questioned… legally or morally. Big question that needs legal decision.
I agree that wartime has different rules but the fact is that this isn't war. The government has not followed any legal processes to make it a war or to justify the actions.
Even if this were war, "double tapping" "sailors" after their ship has been sunk is illegal and immoral. Once a ship sinks, the crew becomes shipwrecked or survivors. International law (like Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions) prohibits attacking them.
The issue of press coverage is entirely separate from the issue of morality. I don't care what the press thinks or does. I'm making the judgement myself. I also don't care what "standard procedure" is or what the polls say. There is about right and wrong, not popular opinion or arguments that "we always do this."
So Congress needs to declare war for it to be legal? If so there are a few US Presidents that did not follow that line of command.
Tony Montana said when demanding more money for moving cocaine to the USA that it has become more difficult, “ they got frogmen and chit…”
Now, they got aircraft carriers and fighter jets. Make the smugglers think more than twice
Ron Paul did a drop on this. Quite honestly, I don't know what to think, but it all looks very murky. We invaded Iraq under bullshit, helped orchestrate the overthrow of Gaddafi, with one writer stating it was recommended by a Clinton staffer for her presidential bid. Then, when it went south, the broken vessel was left, and women paid the price. On the other hand, I know how a war looks has changed. I caught a clip of Bertrand Russell (the famous analytical philosopher) stating, in so many words, that Bismarck started WWI because he had new war toys he wanted to use. Considering that resulted in unsuspecting troops that hadn't gotten the memo that the look of war had changed, being mowed down. I do think a flow of drugs into the country is an act of war of some sort, used to destabilize society, just like the Opium Wars in China were used to destabilize a fragile monarchy.
As it looks like SCOTUS looks to further disembowel the unelected administrative state, I hope Congress crawls back its power.
If it's an act of war then it can follow the normal legal procedures. That needn't be declaring war but Congress needs to authorize it is some form.
The world is often grey, but sometimes right and wrong is obvious. Killing wounded adversaries is wrong.