Invoking historical precedent silences objections to one-sided killing

Evidence

But every time such situations arose, certain contemporaries were troubled. Faced with a spectacle of armed violence that so manifestly contravened “the conventional understanding of war as an activity in which human dying and killing are exchanged,” it was not long before they expressed their indignation. But when these people began to express their objections too openly, they were often faced with a very ancient discursive strategy used to calm uneasy consciences and silence the most vociferous: the reassuring discourse of historical permanence. It is a matter of showing, with the backing of many historical examples, that there is nothing fundamentally new about this kind of situation, so it is perfectly acceptable. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 336

Categorization

• XREF: Directly addresses the reader’s interest in how new ethical norms of neither-war-nor-peace get legitimated. — connects to: “Nothing new under the sun” arguments are an ancient device to normalize one-sided killing; Historical continuity of remote killing does not justify drones — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 337; Impersonal long-range killing is aseptic homicide rather than rational progress (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Worth investigating how this ‘discourse of permanence’ operates in real drone-war policy statements.

Broader Connections

• Historical continuity of remote killing does not justify drones #responds-to (0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 337
• Radical protection from death transforms war into one-sided slaughter or hunting #expands (0.70)
• Impersonal long-range killing is aseptic homicide rather than rational progress #complicates (0.60)
• War’s immunity from murder prosecutions rests on mutual reciprocity #expands (0.60)