# Should drone pilots face homicide charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283 "2012-10-10T04:29:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Naive\_Evian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Naive\_Evian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naive_Evian)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/41 "2012-10-10T08:35:19Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > No. What it is is you pretending that the military is a free-for-all. It’s not. I’m done here since you’re obviously not debating in good faith. I have not argued that the military is a free-for-all. I have argued that members of the military are killing people as part of a program–which is pretty much the opposite of a free-for-all. I further argued that people is this program should be charged with crimes, BUT if they can bring forth evidence that either the people killed were an imminent threat or a part of a group involved in 9/11, the charges should dropped. We should not just assume that they evidence to support an affirmative defense. They must also answer for collateral kills. It is like the case with George Zimmermann. He needs to support his affirmative defense. I have not argued that the military is just killing anyone. They are only killing people targeted in the program and people near those targeted (and they have possibly made some mistakes, too). I don’t how you are getting free-for-all from that. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/42 "2012-10-10T09:31:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It is war. When you drop a bomb it doesn’t select between those who deserve it and those who don’t. Try blaming the terrorists instead of us. You seem to be completely oblivious that legal challenges have been launched against many many aspects of the “war on terror”. Heres another article by a Notre Dame Law Professor stating that targeted killings violate international law. > **[In legal battle against drone strikes, she's on the front lines](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2012-oct-09-la-na-drone-legal-20121009-story.html)** > > In legal battle against drone strikes, she's on the front lines ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/43 "2012-10-10T10:08:42Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > But what if you’re not firing at your enemy? What if you drop an airstrike on some journalists, and then follow it up with another when civilians try to save your victims’ lives? Journalists aren’t a protected class of people, so let’s just say it’s an airstrike against unarmed civilians who are not in any way classified as enemies, and the first responders likewise. If authorized by the president I’d hope he would be impeached and charged with a crime, and if not, all those involved would be charged and tried by the military courts. I don’t expect that actually to be done. I expect at best the lowest people on the totem pole to be sacrificed as happened at Abu Graib. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/44 "2012-10-10T10:09:45Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > Under your erroneous view, what if the president declared war (perhaps secretly) against Miit Romney, is it okay to kill him then? No evidence needed, right? Congress’s only role is to later deal with the funding or impeach. Or what if the president said Mitt Romney was in al Qaeda; no evidence needed, right? What if the president declared war on Dallas or said designated everyone in Dallas a terrorist, is it okay to nuke Dallas? > > And if the president can do these things, what high crime or misdemeanor could support impeachment? > > Congress declares war, not the president. The president can act to stop imminent threats or under Congressional authorization or through a treaty. You answered your own question. The president can’t declare war, openly or covertly, only the congress can do so. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/45 "2012-10-10T10:11:12Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > You seem to be completely oblivious that legal challenges have been launched against many many aspects of the “war on terror”. > > Heres another article by a Notre Dame Law Professor stating that targeted killings violate international law. > [In legal battle against drone strikes, she's on the front lines](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-legal-20121009,0,3639057.story) I’m not oblivious to the challenges. They are similar to my demands for a retraction from moderators. They will be ignored. The constitution places no limits on the presidents ability to make war except for the requirement that such war be funded by congress. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/46 "2012-10-10T11:05:41Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The constitution places no limits on the presidents ability to make war except for the requirement that such war be funded by congress. Right, and Supreme court judges interpret the constitution, so what happens if those judges determine that “targeted killing” is not a legitimate act of war but is actually Assassination ? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/47 "2012-10-10T11:52:16Z")
I’m not going to the answer the OP’s question in a literal, legal interpretation. Seeing as how we are talking about the use of force in the international arena, where of course anarchy is the normal and prevalent state of relations, questions of “law” are, in my opinion, a waste of time. I will say, however, that many Americans seem to have no problem accepting their military behaving overseas in a manner which I presume they would find unacceptable were another foreign power to treat the USA, its citizens and territory, in such a fashion. > [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > If the military bombed a white family gathering in Virginia where there was strong evidence that a single terrorist at the gathering, people would demand prosecutions. But because the people being killed are brown people on the other side of the world, it is just absurd and naive to want to see prosecutions. I think the OP muddies the water here by introducing race as a rationale for this disparity between the way the USA treats other nations and the way it would prefer to be treated itself. The real rationale is the oldest one in the geopolitical book: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by [Thucydides](https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm) > > _…you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must._ I sincerely hope that at some day in the not too-distant future, American historical consensus will judge the use of drone strikes in furtherance of the “War on Terror” as a reckless and shameful abuse of power. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/48 "2012-10-10T12:01:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The constitution places no limits on the presidents ability to make war except for the requirement that such war be funded by congress. That is patently false. The Constitution does not suddenly stop applying when the President decides he’s in a war. Nor do the treaties and laws of the United States. Saying “well, this is war”, isn’t some kind of magic spell that suddenly makes everything the President, military, or intelligence branches do legal and constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/49 "2012-10-10T12:04:49Z")
1. Are you sure the drone operators are military? 2. Would it make a difference (legally) if they were civilians? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/50 "2012-10-10T12:34:38Z")
I’m sorry, is this a serious question? The reason that drone operators on some base in Nevada or wherever are not arrested and prosecuted for murder by some local or state authority is the same reason servicement aren’t arrestested for murder when they come back from war. Because “murder” is a legal definition and the authorized killing of people by uniform soldiers, marines and airmen, acting on behalf of the US Government, the DOD and their particular military branch, in accordance with the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, and whatever other laws apply to military personal does not qualify as “murder”. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/51 "2012-10-10T12:43:08Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > 1. Are you sure the drone operators are military? > > 2. Would it make a difference (legally) if they were civilians? That’s an interesting question if you replace “drone” with “regular old rife or handgun”. Can the US government hire someone from Blackwater (or Academi or Xe Services LLC or whatever they are called now) or just some regular civilian to go and kill someone. I suspect they can’t, legally (whether the CIA or other agencies do covertly is another manner). And if they can’t, does that apply to civilian contractors operating deadly weapon systems? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/52 "2012-10-10T13:34:34Z")
If it is indeed the case that civilian contractors are flying armed drones, I find that very troubling. One of the purposes of having a military force are the safeguards and clear chains of command that allow the upper echelon to control their activities. Lacking those, it’s inevitable that unnecessary killing will take place. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/53 "2012-10-10T14:28:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If it is indeed the case that civilian contractors are flying armed drones, I find that very troubling. One of the purposes of having a military force are the safeguards and clear chains of command that allow the upper echelon to control their activities. Lacking those, it’s inevitable that unnecessary killing will take place. I somehow doubt that the drone pilots (military or otherwise) are simply flying the aircraft around, looking for something that needs killin’. In actual fact, I suspect that there are highly specific missions that are approved at high military levels. The entire premise is nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/54 "2012-10-10T14:56:39Z")
Interesting discussion. I saw a retired British officer on television last night who explained how easy it is to make an error. He was controlling a drone and watched a person seeming to dig a hole in a road = planting an IED. Then he noticed a larger person appear and suddenly realised he was observing a child playing on the road. I do think there are legs to a legal argument against drones but not a winning post. A pilot on the scene who drops a bomb etc is no different to a remote drone pilot and provided they both follow the rules of engagement, they are protected by their military status. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/55 "2012-10-10T15:18:15Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > That is patently false. The Constitution does not suddenly stop applying when the President decides he’s in a war. Nor do the treaties and laws of the United States. Saying “well, this is war”, isn’t some kind of magic spell that suddenly makes everything the President, military, or intelligence branches do legal and constitutional. Cite please? And that is irrelevant to the question. Local prosecutors have no reasonable authority to charge the president with a crime based on your interpretation of the Constitution. Also, the idea that the president is hamstrung in the execution of a war is patently stupid. The president is obligated to protect the nations from threats and has far reaching authority to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/56 "2012-10-10T15:57:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > That’s an interesting question if you replace “drone” with “regular old rife or handgun”. Can the US government hire someone from Blackwater (or Academi or Xe Services LLC or whatever they are called now) or just some regular civilian to go and kill someone. I suspect they can’t, legally (whether the CIA or other agencies do covertly is another manner). And if they can’t, does that apply to civilian contractors operating deadly weapon systems? Yes, the government can do that, although it hasn’t been done for a long time. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8– “The Congress shall have Power. . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” > **[Letter of marque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)** > > A letter of marque and reprisal (French: lettre de marque; lettre de course) was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a foreign state at war with the issuer, licensing international military operations against a specified enemy as reprisal for a previous attack or injury. Captured naval prizes were judged before the government's admiralty court for condemnation and transfer of ownership to the... ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/57 "2012-10-10T16:49:14Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I decided to vote for the guy. How much jail time should I face? Did you vote for him in the hopes that he would kill innocent civilians via drone strikes, and also kill US citizens via drone strikes without any due process? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/58 "2012-10-10T16:50:02Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Cite please? Ummm, the Constitution? Nowhere in that document does it say: “does not apply in times of war”. You could also check out Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, the Gitmo detainee cases, or the quasi war cases. > [@Tripolar](#): > > And that is irrelevant to the question. Local prosecutors have no reasonable authority to charge the president with a crime based on your interpretation of the Constitution. You made a grand statement that was wrong. I corrected you. Call it irrelevant all you want, I was simply pointing out your error. > [@Tripolar](#): > > Also, the idea that the president is hamstrung in the execution of a war is patently stupid. The president is obligated to protect the nations from threats and has far reaching authority to do so. But he can’t violate the Constitution, treaties or laws to do so. Once again, a “war” doesn’t suddenly make the Constitution, the laws or our obligations under treaties just disappear. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/59 "2012-10-10T17:14:41Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Ummm, the Constitution? Nowhere in that document does it say: “does not apply in times of war”. > > You could also check out Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, the Gitmo detainee cases, or the quasi war cases. > > You made a grand statement that was wrong. I corrected you. Call it irrelevant all you want, I was simply pointing out your error. > > But he can’t violate the Constitution, treaties or laws to do so. Once again, a “war” doesn’t suddenly make the Constitution, the laws or our obligations under treaties just disappear. Presidents have discarded habeus without a problem. The cases you cite don’t involve immediate threats (I think, I’ll have to look further). And yes he can violate treaties and laws outside of the Constitution to protect the nation. My grand statement remains unchallenged by history. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/60 "2012-10-10T17:22:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Did you vote for him in the hopes that he would kill innocent civilians via drone strikes, and also kill US citizens via drone strikes without any due process? Well, in hopes that he’d authorize strikes – drone or otherwise, it makes no difference to me – against valid targets, and that he wouldn’t call the whole thing off if an innocent civilian suddenly wanders into the shot; otherwise, I reasoned, enemies could foil our military in general by (a) simply foiling our commander-in-chief in particular, thanks to (b) the simple expedient of always having an innocent civilian on hand. AFAICT, he’s lived up to those hopes. I also hoped he wouldn’t knowingly target an innocent civilian, and AFAICT he’s lived up to those hopes as well. (Folks who merely dress like innocent civilians sure make it hard for him, though – which is why I’d _ **also** _ also hoped that he’d responsibly authorize the minimum necessary amount of force given the circumstances: if we can get the drop on someone and take him into custody without firing a shot, then cue due process; if we _ **can’t,** _ then I endorse the way he refers to it as actionable intelligence and, y’know, acts accordingly.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=4)