An unsent letter to the President's chief counterterrorism advisor

Q15. It is a truism that violence, including terrorist acts will very likely cause counter violence and terrorism when there is no serious attempt by one or more parties to the conflict to negotiate a resolution of the outstanding grievances (perhaps that is one reason your title is chief counterterrorism advisor). Since U.S. administrations seem to prefer solutions by force rather than first exhausting all peaceful solutions how can the U.S. ever hope to achieve a lasting peace in the Great Middle East or anywhere else the U.S. government and American corporations are heavily involved?

Q16. Following up on the previous question, more and more Americans are becoming concerned that U.S. drone strikes and other instances of military confrontation are counterproductive and will eventually cause blowbacks of terrifying proportions. To what extent does the administration agree with this concern?

On your claim that drone strikes by the U.S. are ethical

Q17. Knowing what is ethical is a simple matter but behaving ethically is not likely when a person morally rationalizes an unethical action as ethical. Do you think it is possible that the administration is morally rationalizing its conduct of war, including the use of drone strikes?

Q18. Michael Josephson, a lawyer turned ethicist years ago exhaustively searched throughout history and different cultures and identified the 10 universal ethical values listed here in alphabetical order;   accountability, caring for others, excellence, fairness, fidelity/loyalty, honesty, integrity, promise keeping, respecting others, and responsible citizenship. Can you honestly say that drone strikes do not breech any of those values?

Q19. If you think that drone strikes conform to the Golden Rule, does that in turn mean you are in effect encouraging foreign terrorists to use drone strikes on America?

Q20. In claiming that targeted strikes are ethical you then go on to judge them "against [what you say are] the basic principles of the law of war that govern the use of force;" the principle of necessity, the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionately, and the principle of humanity. Aside perhaps for the last principle (but not in terms of how you apply it) can you honestly say these legalistic and technically oriented principles have any bearing on ethical or moral values?  

Q21. I assume by the principle of humanity you are relying on Emanuel Kant's philosophy of humanity, which places high value on the respecting of human beings and on treating them as ends rather than as means. You state that this principle "requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering." How can you honestly equate this principle with the approved, inhumane use of weapons designed to kill human beings?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).