I agree that we've never been critical enough of America's strikes on innocent people. The difference though is that you can make the case that there was an ongoing war in which these strikes were ostensibly made in an effort to improve the outcomes of a congressionally-approved war.
Presently though, America is not at war with small boats in international waters, so it's a eyebrow-raising (or absolutely disturbing) in similar yet also different ways. They can't even pretend it was necessary or adherent to policy in this case.
So if Osama bin Laden was on a small boat in international waters, then it would be “wrong” to attack the boat?
Anyway, the point isn’t to justify extrajudicial killings, whether they occur in the Middle East or international waters.
The point is that, logically, you should feel the same way about both. “It’s ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a cave but it’s not ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a small boat” isn’t logical. It’s ok to believe both are wrong or both are right. That’s consistent. It’s inconsistent to believe one is right compared to the other, though.
Which brings me to the ultimate point, which is, if you feel that the boat bombings are a violation of law that should cause Trump to be removed from office, then you should also believe that Bush, Biden, and Obama should have been removed from office. And, if you believe Trump should be removed from office but not Obama, then you’re letting a media narrative influence your rational judgement.
If you need further evidence of Trump’s exceptionalism in the media, consider Hacker News. If you tried to discuss Obama’s Middle East bombing, your conversation would be flagged as political discussion. Yet discussing Trump does not receive the same treatment. The thing I dislike most about Trump is that every apolitical corner of the internet I enjoy has put political stakes in the ground.
> So if Osama bin Laden was on a small boat in international waters, then it would be “wrong” to attack the boat?
No, but I see why that might be inferred from what I wrote. I should have been clearer. The significance of international waters isn't to say "everyone should be safe if they're in international waters" but to highlight that it violated maritime law (despite that the administration claims otherwise, stating that the conflict is non-international and directed towards 'armed drug smugglers').
And you're right; I think previous administrations also committed war crimes. The difference is largely that the previous crimes had congressional approval and there was a nationally legitimized ongoing conflict. I don't believe any of it was morally acceptable, though.
That's why I said the attacks were 'ostensibly' made in an effort to support and ongoing war. That's a load-bearing word here, meant to indicate that I don't agree with the pretenses or actual intents.
> The thing I dislike most about Trump is that every apolitical corner of the internet I enjoy has put political stakes in the ground.
I think this is because people are understandably frustrated and frightened, and they're digging their heels in.
> I think this is because people are understandably frustrated and frightened, and they're digging their heels in.
Yes, I completely agree. But my question is, why are people afraid and frustrated? Is Trump truly uniquely abhorrent, or is popular opinion being swayed by media narrative?
And Obama famously killed a US citizen with drone strikes.
But again, my point isn’t to say that drone strikes good or bad. As you said, past administrations also did bad things. I’m simply observing that, in my opinion, the current administration is not so different. At least not different enough to justify a highly elevated level of fear.
I’m an avid NYT reader, and it’s impossible to avoid news about Trump. The things I read seemed terrible at face value, and it makes me afraid. But when I really dig in, I find that the facts are generally misrepresented.
The headline on the front page of the app, which differs from the article’s true headline, is “ICE Crackdowns Have Captured Few Immigrants With Criminal Records, Data Shows”
When you click into the article, the “data” actually shows that 67% of captured immigrants have criminal charges. The headline is misleading.
Ostensibly, the headline meant that “ICE crackdowns in specific cities pick up fewer immigrants compared to the nationwide ICE average”. Should we expect them to? I don’t know.
Then, when you think about the data even more, you realize that the only way the nationwide ICE data could differ substantially from the selected city-specific data is if the city-specific data only made up a small portion of total ICE activity. So another interpretation of the data is “Small ICE operations in US cities is less effective at capturing immigrants with criminal history compared to ICE operations nationwide.”
I’m not commenting on whether or not ICE operations are good or bad. I just genuinely feel there is a narrative that is making people feel more afraid than is truly warranted.
Presently though, America is not at war with small boats in international waters, so it's a eyebrow-raising (or absolutely disturbing) in similar yet also different ways. They can't even pretend it was necessary or adherent to policy in this case.