December 27, 2012

The invention

Of weights and measures

Makes robbery easier.

Signing contracts, setting seals,

Makes robbery more sure.

Teaching love and duty

Provides a fitting language

With which to prove that robbery

Is really for the general good.

A poor man must swing

For stealing a belt buckle

But if a rich man steals a whole state

He is acclaimed

As statesman of the year.

Excerpted from “Cracking the Safe,” by Chuang Tzu.

June 5, 2012
Obama, drone-strikes and human rights

kohenari:

Over at Crooked Timber, Chris Bertram takes a good hard look at American drone warfare. He concludes:

Fortunately, I’m not an American citizen, so I don’t have a moral decision to take about whether to vote for Obama or not this year. If I were, I don’t think it would be an easy decision to take. Romney is clearly remarkably close in political belief to Obama, but will be beholden to the crazy Republican right, as Obama is not. That provides people with a reason to vote for Obama. But the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner doesn’t deserve the vote of anyone who cares about human rights, even if, pragmatically they might feel they have to give it to him.

It would be difficult to say that Bertram is wrong about this, just as it would be difficult to argue with Glenn Greenwald, who has been shouting about “the apparent willingness of the US drone campaign to attack events where non-combatants will certainly be present, such as funerals and to try to evade moral and legal responsibility by redefining ‘combatant’ to include any military-age male in a strike zone.”

So I’m not arguing, just posting Bertram’s entirely agreeable conclusion with links to Greenwald.

When it comes to human rights abroad, the American government continues to make terrible, terrible decisions — regardless, it seems, of who happens to occupy the White House.

October 31, 2011
The American way of bombing?

The problems with remote-controlled warfare are legion. The human operator ‘is terribly remote from the consequences of his actions; he is likely to be sitting in an air-conditioned trailer, hundreds of miles from the area of battle.’ He evaluates ‘target signatures’ captured by various sensor systems that ‘no more represent human beings than the tokens in a board-type war game.’

The rise of this new ‘American way of bombing’, as it’s been called, has two particularly serious consequences. First, ‘through its isolation of the military actor from his target, automated warfare diminishes the inhibitions that could formerly be expected on the individual level in the exercise of warfare’. In short, killing is made casual. Secondly, once the risk of combat is transferred to the target, it becomes much easier for the state to go to war. Domestic audiences are disengaged from the violence waged in their name: ‘Remote-controlled warfare reduces the need for the public to confront the consequences of military action abroad.’

(Source: azspot)

August 27, 2010
The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

From Wikipedia:

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner is a five-line poem by Randall Jarrell published in 1945. It is about the death of a gunner in a Sperry ball turret on a World War II American bomber aircraft.

From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

Jarrell, who served in the Army Air Force, provided the following explanatory note:

“A ball turret was a plexiglass sphere set into the belly of a B-17 or B-24, and inhabited by two .50 caliber machine guns and one man, a short small man. When this gunner tracked with his machine guns a fighter attacking his bomber from below, he revolved with the turret; hunched upsidedown in his little sphere. The fighters which attacked him were armed with cannon firing explosive shells. The hose was a steam hose.”

Reviewer, Leven M. Dawson, says that “The theme of Randall Jarrell’s ‘The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner’ is that institutionalized violence, or war, creates moral paradox, a condition in which acts repugnant to human nature become appropriate.”[1] Most commentators agree, calling the poem a condemnation of the dehumanizing powers of “the State”, which are most graphically exhibited by the violence of war.[2]