In the linked thread, posters are debating the technical legality of the use of drone strikes in furtherance of the “War on Terror”. Frankly, I couldn’t give two shits about the legality of it. What I would like to see is, for those who support these strikes, a moral justification of this policy.
I find these strikes to be despicable, cowardly acts by a hyperpower intent upon imposing its will across the globe in a fashion which it would never tolerate itself were it the target of such a policy. It makes me ashamed to be an American citizen.
Didn’t take long for the “incidentally killing children and innocents in drone attacks is ok, because it’s not carpet bombing” justification to get trotted out.
In what possible way is this a moral justification? Who determines who “needs killing”? Isn’t that pretty much how Mohammed Atta et al. would justify their deeds?
Someone who would kill me needs killing. Even taking that in the general sense I don’t think that’s the principal reason drone targets are selected. I support the use of drone strikes or other methods to kill the rabid dogs of this world, though my views on that are in transition. But assuming a case where killing is justified, I’d rather it was done by a drone than carpet bombing.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Your debating skills too. Incidentally I’m very happy that my proud nation has been of service to you in drone killing an American citizen. (This Danish Dude Claims He Was a CIA Mole in al-Qaida)
They’re flawed and at times ethically troubling, but they are better than the alternatives. They’re intended to deal with diffuse international terrorist groups. All-out war with so many countries is unworkable and would in any case be worse and more damaging; the countries involved are unwilling or unable to do anything about it (or are willing to defer to the U.S.), and while arresting these people would be preferable at times, it’s also not practical to send police officers or CIA agents into bunches of countries where suspects can move freely and disappear with little notice and where the local government sometimes can’t be trusted. So there’s your moral justification: terrorists kill innocent people across the world, the strikes are one tool that’s necessary in stopping them from murdering more people.
What’s the moral difference between a drone strike, bombing by aircraft, shelling by artillery, or sending in a bunch of soldiers to shoot a place up with M16s?
If it isn’t moral to send a bunch of soldiers to shoot the place up, then it isn’t moral to send a drone to shoot the place up. If it is, then it is.
I think Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and many other wartime leaders also made determinations about who needed killing. Why do you hate Abraham Lincoln?
Nonsense. The point of the drone is to have less collateral damage than larger bomb strikes or indiscriminate killing. Again, assuming the killing is justified to begin with, the means that best avoids killing innocent bystanders is the best approach. And again, that doesn’t mean that the actual drone strikes conducted have been justified on that basis.
I am troubled by this sentiment, though I can’t substantially disagree. You and I both have a natural right to exist, and I would say it is moral to oppose existential threats.
This is where I part company with you, however.
These strikes involve the overflight of sovereign territory and the destruction of non-combatant life and property of said sovereign citizens, as “collateral damage”.
I believe that Hani Hanjour, if not Mohammed Atta, could have claimed to be following the very same policy 11 years ago.
I thought that the USA was supposed to be better than this.
Drones are little, if at all, different from actual bombings with live human pilots. Even now, bombers use complicated electronics to find a target and guide the bomb in. Having the pilot sitting in a couch a few hundred miles away doesn’t change the equation for me at all.
In point of fact, I’m generally baffled that drones have become some sort of scare word. A drone is a bomber whose pilot isn’t physically located inside of it.
That causes no problems for me.
A well thought-out and proportionate response. One to which I myself subscribed years ago.
However, it still strikes me as counter-productive to slaughter innocents in order to prevent the slaughter of other innocents. That is, if one wants to have any pretense of moral conduct. Otherwise, it’s merely the exercise of power.
I don’t hate Lincoln - to me, he was the second best POTUS after Washington.
As for the others:
Churchill - imperialist monster, hopefully roasting in Hell.
Wilson - well-intentioned fool, ignored by the bloodthirsty George and Clemenceau.
FDR - 3rd best POTUS, key factor in winning most important war in human history.
Look at what fuels the ‘War on Terror’ in general, and drone strikes in particular. Who are the major players supporting it?
Politicians. Republican ones who want to blow up shit to look strong, and Democrat ones who don’t want to look weak.
Military officers. I don’t think this can be stressed enough: much of the decision-making about whether to continue the WoT, and how to prosecute it, are made my career military men. It is not in their mindset to scale BACK a war! I’m not labelling them bloodthirsty killer, and I’m sure that most would profess that they prefer there be no war in the first place. But they have spend years and decades studying war, learning about war, and thinking about war. It’s what they, like it or not, are programmed to do. That aside, I can’t help but think that the Colonel who publicly says “Ya know guys, this is dumb. Let’s pull out now. Drone strikes? Bad idea.” will probably see a promotion. No promotion for an officer means you’re out of the military before long.
The military-industrial complex is real. From domestic ‘homeland security’ to drones, there are companies pushing their products, and jobs that rely on those products. Those companies contribute to political campaigns. So in more ways than one, drone strikes buy votes.
Voters, mainly conservative/Republican ones, who want daily drone strikes until every Muslim who has something bad to say about the US is dead.
Unfortunately, drone strikes will probaby not stop soon. There’s too much to lose, and I’m not talking about risking more terror attacks.
What happened to the reports that the big terrorist groups were ‘beaheaded’? We got Bin Laden, and word is that the was pretty much alredy ineffective. You might say ‘But we’re still killing the heads of terrorist organizations!’ Well sure we are. As long as there are groups that are acting counter to the interests of the US, or voicing their displeasure using Islam, those groups are going to have leaders. Hence, there will ALWAYS be drone targets.
So, to me collateral damage from taking out the 24th string terrorist quaterbacks is not morally justifiable.
I don’t, nor do I support the “War on Terror” in the first place. It’s mostly about harassing innocent people, torture, excusing conquest, and flailing around killing people at near random.
As for drones? Drones have become popular because they allow killing without direct risk. Americans love killing, pretty much for its own sake, as long as they can do it without risking getting hurt. They don’t really care if it actually accomplishes anything.
So, we agree in general that elected leaders, within the bounds of the law, are allowed to decide who needs killing, and therefore the comparison to Mohammad Atta is off-target. That sort of blunts your question about who decides who needs killing: our freely elected government does.
However, this goes to the “cowardly” aspect I referred to in my OP.
The disparity of power could not be more evident in such cases. But as a matter of course, if my family is wiped out by a “smart” bomb, I’m not really concerned at that moment if the plane that dropped it has people on board.