October 2, 2011 § Leave a comment
Word today [30 September 2011] is that the United States has murdered an American national thought, but not proven, to be engaged in “war” against the United States. A commentator [from the GWB school of legal advice analogizes it to killing a Japanese Admiral during World War II]. Thought experiment: In a paper of 500 words or less compare and contrast the imagined killing of Jack Goldsmith to the actual killing of Al-Awlaki. You may use the Goldsmith-Gonzales-Yoo-Feith style of analysis. The paper is due before the use of drones comes to the U.S., or yesterday, whichever comes first.
One response was that such drones “Drones will not come to the US. . . . Factually, any nation with an even moderately capable air defense network will not have to worry about drones.”
Followup question: Identify each and every weapons technology and/or technique for which migration from so-called “first world militaries” to so-called “non-first” world militaries is factually impossible. Assume the would-be possessors dream of eternal rewards for his/her/its efforts, have sufficient funds, boundless enthusiasm, think “God is on his/her/its side” and refuse to take “No!” for an answer. I will take my answer in the fallout shelter. The “killing/murder/assassination” to me, it looks just like another political assassination by the United States Government [or its predecessors] of those opposed to its policies, rather along the lines of Metacom; King Hancock; Sitting Bull; Charlemagne Peralte; Ngo Dinh Diem, Mangas Coloradas; Conquering Bear; American Horse the Elder; Osceola; Leschi; Big Foot; Patrice Lumumba; Usama Bin Ladin, and a host of others I shan’t list here and now.