The White House's Unsurprising Response to Leak of Drone Rules: "Legal, Ethical, Wise"

Here's White House Spokesman Jay Carney's response today regarding the White House's recently leaked rules on when the administration will kill American citizens:

Joel Gehrke is a commentary writer for The Washington Examiner.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • rts||

    These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise...

    ... until the other party is in power.

  • iggy||

    Given that Jay Carney claimed the NRA was evil for using Obama's children as a political tool the day after Obama surrounded himself with children while signing executive orders, I don't think Jay is particularly self-aware.

  • SugarFree||

    Carney does have to be self-aware, just use his mouth to make the right noises when Obama's hand pokes the correct internal organs.

  • ||

    "Truuuuuuuuuuuuuueeee....looooooooooove....."

  • iggy||

    Hey, me and SugarFree are just friends.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    SugarFree is everybody's friend. Then he puts the roofies in your milkshake.

  • SugarFree||

    I've never heard any complaints afterwards.

  • Aresen||

    ... until the other party is in power.

    This^10,000,000,000

    If a Team Red occupant of the WH was saying this, the MSM would be calling for impeachment yesterday.

  • Loki||

    The White House's Unsurprising Response to Leak of Drone Rules: "Legal, Ethical, Wise"

    They keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they think they mean.

  • iggy||

    The use of the word legal is my favorite. Since the government decides what is legal, everything the government does is legal. It's just basic logic, man.

  • alexdroog||

  • JW||

    "Legal, Ethical, Wise"

    He's tipping his hand that Sotomayor is on board.

    Roberts will just consider drone strikes a tax.

  • Lord Humungus||

    pENALtAX!

  • Mike Laursen||

    Please. Wise to take out your enemies with impersonal robots with tons of collateral deaths? No perception that you can't be bothered to show up in person and at least make an attempt to attack your targets with a little more care. No possibility of the resentment leading to new enemies.

  • iggy||

    Remember when all the talk was about 'winning hearts and minds?' Regardless of any other arguments about drone usage, it strikes me that raining impersonal fire from the air which frequently causes collateral damage is probably not the most effective way to win hearts and minds.

  • NeonCat||

    If I'm not mistaken, our enemies also think it's a cowardly way to go about it, too. Not that that prevents them from using IEDs or suicide bombers, of course.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Honestly, I doubt the impersonality of drone strikes is a particularly significant matter. I doubt they are saying to themsleves "Oh, gee, I really wish it was a stealth bomber that rained fiery death on us!". War is not a game. Using the best advantages you have to maximize your enemy's casualties while minimizing your own is going to be understood to be fair game.

  • iggy||

    This is probably true of actual terrorists. But think about civilians living in those areas. The issue is that they never actually see U.S. personnel. When you're raining fiery death on people and they never see you, it's incredibly easy for individuals to get it in their minds that you really are an impersonal, murderous Satan-figure. We aren't doing ourselves any favors with civilians in drone riddled areas.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    As opposed to the guys in kevlar armor sporting around in Humvees blaring heavy metal (okay, admittedly a stereotype)? Not really. I don't think these folks are backwards primitives in that way. I don't think it's the means of violence that forms people's opinions. Now, the fact that it is an assassination, rather than a battle? That probably does play a role.

  • Redmanfms||

    No perception that you can't be bothered to show up in person and at least make an attempt to attack your targets with a little more care.

    While I disagree with drone implementation, boots on ground is higher impact than drones firing guided missiles.

    No possibility of the resentment leading to new enemies.

    Yup, we're much beloved in Afghanistan and Iraq because we bothered to show up in person....

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    I don't know that there is anything less relevant to an argument in justification of a policy as a politician saying, "Well, it IS legal!" Yes, you and your cabal made laws (or reinterpreted them, as it were) to say that what you wanted to do is something you are allowed to do. And that is why you're allowed to do it. See? It's "ethical" now. Why wouldn't it be, it's "the law"?

  • JW||

    These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise

    Doesn't the batter usually sit down at this point?

  • R C Dean||

    I'd like to hear from the Nobel Peace Prize committee at this point.

  • JW||

    I can hear them minting a brand new medal.

  • NeonCat||

    "He had such a great track record! He seemed so cool and promised so much and, oh, okay, it was a practical joke that got out of hand because Olaf's secretary didn't know it was a joke, sent out the announcement and then it was too late to do anything about it."

  • SugarFree||

    To be fair to the Nobel Committee, Obama had not started a war before getting the Peace Prize.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sad to think Al Gore is actually more deserving of his prize than Hopey McStalindra

  • R C Dean||

    Fuck, I haven't started a war, either. Don't I get a prize?

  • SugarFree||

    But what if giving you a Peace Prize makes you start a war? What if Obama would have be the dove of peace they all hoped for if not for the corrupting influence of the Dread Prize?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Wise? Not so sure. It strikes me that, to the extent possible, we would want to act to preserve combat to a direct confrontation between opposing forces. That maximizes our advantage. Bringing assassination into the game may not be an ideal strategy.

  • kinnath||

    I pray every day to the FSM that Obama gets impeached over the drones and the execution of Al-Awaki.

  • JW||

    Considering that TEAM RED would love to have the same latitude when they slip presidential iron glove back on, I seriously doubt that.

    Now, maybe if they caught Obama fucking a drone, or if he invented gay drones...

  • Aresen||

    Pigs will fly first.

    1) Team Blue is OK with it cause "He's on our team."
    2) Team Red's only problem with it is that he didn't do it MOAR.

    He won't get impeached unless he drone-strikes the Superbowl with 5 minutes left in a close game.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Not really. Maybe it's just hypocrisy, but a few of the right wing blogs are noting this with at least some pretty robust condemnation in the comments.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And now, some selected opinions from Obamaville-TPM!

    SpawnOfThor
    Indeed. I ask the histrionic pearl clutchers: What is the alternative? Afford these terrorists protection under the laws of this nation until they kill our citizens as they stated they would do? If you're a member of Al Qaeda, you sealed your fate when you joined their ranks. If I up and joined Al Qaeda, I'd expect that I'd no longer be afforded the niceties of due process. were I plotting against this nation from abroad.

    SpawnOfThor
    I support this policy under Obama, and I would have supported it under Bush. These fuckers are plotting to terrorize this nation from abroad. Whether they are citizens is irrelevant, they mean to do us harm nonetheless. This is the world in which we live, and this is the least bad option. BTW there's some spectacular self-righteous handwringing going on over this over at that fucking shithole dailykos. They are talking impeachment of Obama and comparing him to Hitler. JFK and Clinton would have done exactly as Obama is doing.

    Due process is too hard! He made videos mommy! Videos that scared me! Drone him! Drone him to death!

  • iggy||

    Those 400 children may have grown up and one day attacked America! Random Taliban operatives crouching in a cave in west Pakistan are imminent threats! People who do nothing but print newsletters are no longer afforded due process, even though there's no evidence they were ever involved in an actual terrorist plot! Booga, booga, booga!

  • Redmanfms||

    BTW there's some spectacular self-righteous handwringing going on over this over at that fucking shithole dailykos. They are talking impeachment of Obama and comparing him to Hitler.

    KosKiddies questioning the Dear Leader and actually calling for impeachment? If anybody can find a link to that I'd just love to read it for the pure irony lulz.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I haven't seen any impeachment talk at the Kos Mental Ward, but they are not in love with Barry at the moment.

  • gaijin||

    gotta build 'em up so it's more fun bringin em down.

  • freeAgent||

    There is a word for this: hubris.

  • DaveAnthony||

    Can someone please make a jpg of dead Pakistani children or women, hit by the murderdrones? The more gory and brutal, the better.

    On top of that image:
    Jay Carney, Obama's Whitehouse Spokesman: "These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise"

    We need to fucking post this shit everywhere.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement