The whole miserable story—a large part of it, at least—is laid out for us in my favorite whipping boy, the Washington Post. Karen DeYoung is still willing to question authority and tell it like it is, and it’s awful. You should definitely read the whole thing, but here a few passages that I found particularly noisome:
“Among other variables, according to one [CIA] source briefed on the program, those selecting targets calculate how much potential collateral damage [that is to say, innocent civilian deaths] is acceptable relative to the value of the target. An insurgent leader aware of such logic, they said, could avoid an attack simply by positioning himself in the midst of enough civilians to make the strike too costly.”
Makes sense, doesn’t it? If we’re such pussies that we won’t kill more than five innocents (or “collaterals,” in CIA talk), then the bad guys will just surround themselves with six. Those bastards!
Another concern: “Many administration lawyers strongly disapprove of opinions written under President George W. Bush that justified detainee interrogation methods now widely regarded as torture. But they worry that Obama’s 2009 decision to make them public has set a precedent for the release of normally classified opinions.”
Yes, because if we release information on the crimes, murders, and sundry “evil”* committed by other people, then other people might release information on the crimes, murders, and sundry “evil” committed by us! And if there’s anything lawyers hate, it’s being held responsible for their actions. We don’t act, damn it! We advise! Because being a lawyer means never having to go to jail.
My advice: read this article, and don’t vote for President Obama’s re-election. He doesn’t deserve it.
*Remember “evil”? It used to be a bad thing. But now, apparently, it’s a good thing. It’s certainly our thing.
