Panetta Declares Second Strike War Crime, First Strike Just Good Ol' Fun?
CBS News, citing former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, highlights the 'war crime' implications of a second U.S. strike designed to eliminate survivors of an initial alleged drug boat attack. What the mainstream narrative often omits is the selective outrage apparatus: when the U.S. engages in such tactics abroad, often involving drone strikes that kill civilians labeled as 'collateral damage,'
the term 'war crime' rarely surfaces from establishment figures. It appears some acts of violence only qualify for the harshest condemnation when deemed strategically inconvenient, or perhaps when they lack the necessary 'fog of war' plausible deniability. One might wonder if Panetta's suddenly sharpened moral compass has ever wavered when assessing the drone program under administrations he
served—a program that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, killed hundreds of civilians, including children. The question isn't whether hunting survivors is a war crime; it's why this particular instance warrants such a stern, albeit belated, declaration, while countless others are quietly filed under 'operational necessities.' It's almost as if the severity of a 'crime' depends
on whose ox is being gored, or whose narrative needs a convenient moral pivot.