My latest for @MSNBC looks at the Pentagon’s investigation into the August drone strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians, including 7 children, and what their conclusions say about how our military thinks about drone warfare: msnbc.com/opinion/americ… 
“It is a horrifying wake-up call that comes as no surprise to those who have followed the advent and expansion of drone warfare. But, as with all recurring horrors, there are moments that prompt more attention than others — and sometimes even change.” msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
In the column, I discuss problems with the investigation, with the initial review of the strike (and the review of that review), and — ultimately — with the attack itself. msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
The Pentagon told us that the intelligence assessment that led to 7 children being killed was “regrettably inaccurate,” prompting the “regrettable strike,” leading to “regrettable civilian casualties.” None of that was negligence, the review concluded. msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
I expanded on something I mentioned here when the review came out: This is all so damning bc “despite the many mistakes listed as having been made in the lead-up to the strike, the Pentagon has concluded that those involved exercised a reasonable amount of care in their actions.”
I encourage you to read the whole thing: msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
![The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court's stay order "divest[s]" the district court "order of enforceability"). Even if we accepted respondents' characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to "coerce" the Government into "compliance" and would be unenforceable given our stay o...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gu9jERBWYAAyH07.png)
