So the mainstream media and late-night comedians are discussing the illegality of using the Signal app for such a chat since it isn\u2019t sufficiently secure for keeping secrets. They comment on the incompetence of having included the reporter. They wonder whether anyone should be fired over this.<\/p>\n
As is their custom, they\u2019re missing the real scandals here.<\/p>\n
Scandal 1: People were Killed, Including Children<\/strong><\/h3>\n\u00a0<\/strong>According to a Yemen Data Project report<\/a>, from March 15-21 there were at least 53 civilians killed. At least four of them were children.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/729-Yemeni-children.jpg\")
<\/a>Anti-war demonstration of Yemeni children (1994)<\/p><\/div>\n
Much of the discussion in the press is about how the information being leaked might potentially<\/u><\/em> have put the pilots carrying out the strikes in danger. Far rarer is any discussion of the danger that actually happened<\/u><\/em> to dozens of innocent bystanders.<\/p>\nScandal 2: Callous and Gleeful<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe term \u201ccollateral damage\u201d has always been an outrageous euphemism, but at least it acknowledges that something undesirable happened. Not even noticing the \u201ccollateral damage\u201d is way more callous.<\/p>\n
There was a celebratory attitude about having hit the intended targets, totally oblivious to the nightmare caused to those killed and to their loved ones who must mourn them. Here\u2019s a screenshot of emojis<\/a> in response:<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/1-blog-emojis.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt\u2019s one thing to make the case that military actions are a tragic necessity, that killing may be unavoidable for an important goal that will save other people\u2019s lives. This is common in just war theory, but that\u2019s not what\u2019s happening here. Glee is not sorrow. For those who think it was justified, only sorrow is called for.<\/p>\n
Scandal 3: Pointlessness<\/strong><\/h3>\nBut it\u2019s not justified under just war theory. It\u2019s not good strategy for the stated goals, since it\u2019s a strategy that\u2019s been tried for years and never worked yet. There\u2019s no good rationale for why that would change and suddenly work now. As is common for the war mentality, it\u2019s out of touch with reality.<\/p>\n
As Daniel McCarthy puts it in The Real Scandal of the Signal Leak | Compact<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\nYet something else endangers the lives of America\u2019s military personnel in a far more significant way\u2014namely, sending them into another Middle East conflict in the first place . . .<\/strong><\/p>\nWhat the Signal chat revealed is that Donald Trump is making the same mistakes as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush before him\u2014egged on by his conventionally hawkish national security advisor, Michael Waltz, the figure most likely to have been responsible for Goldberg\u2019s accidental inclusion in the conversation.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong>Scandal 4: Secrecy<\/strong><\/h3>\nIt seems so very obvious to almost all media commentators that the scandal is that secrets weren\u2019t kept. Yet we live in a democracy. There aren\u2019t supposed to be secrets kept from the people, since the people are the ultimate decision-makers.<\/p>\n
Secrecy doesn\u2019t merely protect the people tasked with fighting a war. It also protects the war planners from public scrutiny. This is a recipe for disaster.<\/p>\n
As Daniel McCarthy put it:<\/p>\n
The scandal here isn\u2019t what the government failed to keep secret, it\u2019s the secrecy itself and the dangerously ill-conceived policies it serves . . .<\/strong><\/p>\nWhat\u2019s remarkable here is the concern with looking indecisive rather than with making a bad decision. Which should be the criterion of whether or not America goes to war? Secretary Hegseth ought to discuss that with the American people\u2014and President Trump, too.<\/p>\n
Main Scandal<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe overarching, biggest scandal of all is one that we already knew before this specific one arose, and which we\u2019re bound to have evidence for yet again. In two parts:<\/p>\n
\n- We\u2019re still immature enough to kill people in wars.<\/li>\n
- Much of the media understand this as normal, and present it that way.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
==========================<\/p>\n
For similar posts, see: <\/em><\/p>\nSeeing War\u2019s Victims<\/a>: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria<\/p>\nHeartbreakingly Common: Suicide Among Veterans<\/a><\/p>\nThe Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory<\/a>: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration<\/p>\nWar Causes Abortion<\/a><\/p>\nThe Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Rachel MacNair A journalist is mistakenly invited and included in a group chat of top officials discussing a military strike in Yemen. Details of the operation that\u2019s about to happen are given there, but the reporter doesn\u2019t divulge them to anybody at that point. Indeed, it\u2019s not until the strikes happen as detailed that… <\/p>\n
<\/a>Anti-war demonstration of Yemeni children (1994)<\/p><\/div>\n
Much of the discussion in the press is about how the information being leaked might potentially<\/u><\/em> have put the pilots carrying out the strikes in danger. Far rarer is any discussion of the danger that actually happened<\/u><\/em> to dozens of innocent bystanders.<\/p>\n The term \u201ccollateral damage\u201d has always been an outrageous euphemism, but at least it acknowledges that something undesirable happened. Not even noticing the \u201ccollateral damage\u201d is way more callous.<\/p>\n There was a celebratory attitude about having hit the intended targets, totally oblivious to the nightmare caused to those killed and to their loved ones who must mourn them. Here\u2019s a screenshot of emojis<\/a> in response:<\/p>\n It\u2019s one thing to make the case that military actions are a tragic necessity, that killing may be unavoidable for an important goal that will save other people\u2019s lives. This is common in just war theory, but that\u2019s not what\u2019s happening here. Glee is not sorrow. For those who think it was justified, only sorrow is called for.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s not justified under just war theory. It\u2019s not good strategy for the stated goals, since it\u2019s a strategy that\u2019s been tried for years and never worked yet. There\u2019s no good rationale for why that would change and suddenly work now. As is common for the war mentality, it\u2019s out of touch with reality.<\/p>\n As Daniel McCarthy puts it in The Real Scandal of the Signal Leak | Compact<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n Yet something else endangers the lives of America\u2019s military personnel in a far more significant way\u2014namely, sending them into another Middle East conflict in the first place . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n What the Signal chat revealed is that Donald Trump is making the same mistakes as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush before him\u2014egged on by his conventionally hawkish national security advisor, Michael Waltz, the figure most likely to have been responsible for Goldberg\u2019s accidental inclusion in the conversation.<\/p>\n It seems so very obvious to almost all media commentators that the scandal is that secrets weren\u2019t kept. Yet we live in a democracy. There aren\u2019t supposed to be secrets kept from the people, since the people are the ultimate decision-makers.<\/p>\n Secrecy doesn\u2019t merely protect the people tasked with fighting a war. It also protects the war planners from public scrutiny. This is a recipe for disaster.<\/p>\n As Daniel McCarthy put it:<\/p>\n The scandal here isn\u2019t what the government failed to keep secret, it\u2019s the secrecy itself and the dangerously ill-conceived policies it serves . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n What\u2019s remarkable here is the concern with looking indecisive rather than with making a bad decision. Which should be the criterion of whether or not America goes to war? Secretary Hegseth ought to discuss that with the American people\u2014and President Trump, too.<\/p>\n The overarching, biggest scandal of all is one that we already knew before this specific one arose, and which we\u2019re bound to have evidence for yet again. In two parts:<\/p>\n ==========================<\/p>\n For similar posts, see: <\/em><\/p>\n Seeing War\u2019s Victims<\/a>: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria<\/p>\n Heartbreakingly Common: Suicide Among Veterans<\/a><\/p>\n The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory<\/a>: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration<\/p>\n War Causes Abortion<\/a><\/p>\n The Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Rachel MacNair A journalist is mistakenly invited and included in a group chat of top officials discussing a military strike in Yemen. Details of the operation that\u2019s about to happen are given there, but the reporter doesn\u2019t divulge them to anybody at that point. Indeed, it\u2019s not until the strikes happen as detailed that… <\/p>\nScandal 2: Callous and Gleeful<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nScandal 3: Pointlessness<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\u00a0<\/strong>Scandal 4: Secrecy<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Main Scandal<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n