# 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:** 6
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/101 "2012-10-10T21:57:01Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Correction: All **Naive Evian** knows. Thankfully, there are more informed people in places of power. Nobody outside the program knows if the strikes are legally justified. We should not assume that they are. We don’t know what the people in power know. We do know the people in power recently authorized torture and distorted the evidence to get support for a war of choice. That should have taught you not to put blind trust in the people in power. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/102 "2012-10-10T22:05:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In the context of war that’s not against the law, so there is no requirement for an affirmative defense. If we can get real for a moment, the government asserts that the drone program is self-defense and is supported by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That’s the basis for the drone strikes for almost a decade and it’s not going to be thrown out the window now. The president’s power to make war is not subject to judicial oversight and I don’t think the AUMF requires the president to go through a judicial process in targeting suspected terrorists or sharing that information with the public (beyond whatever is shared with the Congressional intelligence committees, for example), and in reality essentially all the evidence here is classified. You’re trying to work backward to reach a conclusion that does not make sense. It is only in the context of a valid war if the targeted people are people identified in the 2001 autorization (or if they are imminent threats). The government has not brought forth evidence to show the strikes are against people identified in 2001 authorization. In fact, they don’t make any statements about specific authorizations for any target. They make vague claims that they can target anyone who is an imminent threat or identified in the 2001 authorization, but say which reason they are using for any target or whether either reason applies to any target. We don’t know if the pilots’ actions are part of a valid war. We should not assume they are. The pilots would have an opportunity to present evidence at their trials. If government chooses to keep the information secret, the pilots will have to pay the price. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/103 "2012-10-10T22:23:21Z")
I disagree. I watched while a secret war was waged on the people of Cambodia and Laos by our military. That was wrong. This, on the other hand, looks to be justified. Not because I just ‘trust’ Mr. Obama and the Joint Chiefs, but because we have significant congressional oversight in place. Death is never a good thing, but it is sometimes the only way to eliminate evil. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/104 "2012-10-10T23:14:56Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > Nobody outside the program knows if the strikes are legally justified. We should not assume that they are. We don’t know what the people in power know. So you propose to accuse a member of the armed forces of murder while, by your own admission, you lack the evidence to make a prima facia case that any crime has occurred, in order to force either the president or the accused (I’m not clear on your views on that point) to reveal evidence of whether or not a crime was committed? I could respectfully disagree with you on the laws of war and civilian casualties; that is a complex topic with many reasonable views. But I think it is a terrible thing to use our criminal justice system in this way. What if some local District Attorney decided to go around arresting Federal officials for crimes for which no evidence exists, simply in order to force Obama to reveal his “real” birth certificate? Using the courts in this manner is an extreme danger to the Constitution and the rule of law in this country. No matter how strongly you feel about what is going on overseas, this is a terrible, terrible response to it. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/105 "2012-10-10T23:25:44Z")
**Naive Evian** , why aren’t we investigating every single member of the military past and present for their part in the conspiracy to murder all the people that have been killed in wars? We don’t if any of those killings were legal without such an investigation. BTW: Where were you on the night of June 12, 1994? Please provide absolute proof that you were not in Los Angeles that night because I think you are responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson. That was an actual crime and you’ve provided no evidence that you didn’t commit that crime. Your own testimony can’t be believed because murderers can’t be expected to tell the truth. You will have to show that you’ve been thoroughly investigated by the authorities, brought to trial, and found not guilty to prove you are not responsible. Please tell us the date and location of your trial. Until you do so I must assume you are a murderer, and who knows how many other innocent people you have killed. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/106 "2012-10-10T23:27:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So you propose to accuse a member of the armed forces of murder while, by your own admission, you lack the evidence to make a prima facia case that any crime has occurred, in order to force either the president or the accused (I’m not clear on your views on that point) to reveal evidence of whether or not a crime was committed? > > I could respectfully disagree with you on the laws of war and civilian casualties; that is a complex topic with many reasonable views. But I think it is a terrible thing to use our criminal justice system in this way. What if some local District Attorney decided to go around arresting Federal officials for crimes for which no evidence exists, simply in order to force Obama to reveal his “real” birth certificate? Using the courts in this manner is an extreme danger to the Constitution and the rule of law in this country. No matter how strongly you feel about what is going on overseas, this is a terrible, terrible response to it. The prima facile can be made. See posts above. There might be an affirmative defense that actions were in defense of imminent threat or against enemies under the 2001 declaration, but showing that they were not an imminent threat or declared enemies is not an element of any crime of homicide. It is an affirmative defense for the defense to prove. Like of the Zimmermann trial. The prosecution does not carry the initial burden to show that Zimmermann did not in self defense. The defense has the burden to make that showing. Just like here, the pilots have to show they were acting in defense of an imminent threat or against a declared enemy. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/107 "2012-10-10T23:43:43Z")
The difference between the drone strikes and typical military actions is that the strikes are not on any field of battle and the people killed are often not known to be armed. The strike contained to any particular country or area. There is no obvious connection between many of strikes and the 2001 declaration. There are real questions about whether the drone strikes are valid acts of war. We should not just assume that are. The federal government has made no effort to show these strikes are valid acts of war, which why we need a brave local prosecutor. Why do assume these valid acts of war after the lies about torture and distortions used to gain support for the Iraq wa? We need oversight of this program. If the government came forward with evidence that the strikes were valid acts of war, the charges should be immediately dropped. (We should still have a national conversation about drone strikes. We know mistakes have been made where innocent people have been killed. It is not moral to sacrifice these people to possibly make Americans safer.) I know people question whether race and nationality have anything to with the blank check people are willing to give the government, but I guarantee if there were a drone strike against a white family in America there would a huge outcry. The brown people in other countries are every bit as human as white Americans, and the outrage should be the same. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/108 "2012-10-11T00:38:33Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > The fact that no one has been charged with any crimes. No one’s been charged with torturing prisoners at Gitmo either, not even the fucker who wrote a book singing its praises. That says more about how much of a scumbag Obama is than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/109 "2012-10-11T00:42:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We are killing our enemies in a war. They are terrorists not civilian first responders. And why should I believe that? We’ve been slaughtering and torturing people pretty much at random for years now and just asserting that they were terrorists to justify it. Like in Fallujah, where we forbade any male over ten or so to leave, then slaughtered people indiscriminately with the excuse that if they were there, they were terrorists/insurgents. Including, yes, people who came out of cover to help someone else we’d shot, along with the occasional fleeing family. And that’s hardly the only case where we’ve killed “first responders”. > [@Monty](#): > > Really? You really believe that if some drone operator disregards orders and the rules of engagemetn and strafes a hospital just for chuckles and grins, killing a fair number of the people there, the military isn’t going to court-martial that drone operator? Not unless someone leaks it to the media; otherwise they’d just cover it up. ---
**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 11, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/110 "2012-10-11T04:00:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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.) I’m not really sure if you should be charged as an accessory then. I’d have to think about it. You seem willing to tolerate civilian casualties in the program, but you would RATHER none be killed. So does your indifference to accidental casualties condemn you? Not sure … ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/111 "2012-10-11T04:17:08Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > It is only in the context of a valid war This is a made-up term without any legal meaning. > [@](#): > > The government has not brought forth evidence to show the strikes are against people identified in 2001 authorization. In fact, they don’t make any statements about specific authorizations for any target. They make vague claims that they can target anyone who is an imminent threat or identified in the 2001 authorization, but say which reason they are using for any target or whether either reason applies to any target. Show me the part of the AUMF that requires them to share that evidence with the public and explain the reasoning behind the selection of any target. > [@](#): > > The pilots would have an opportunity to present evidence at their trials. There won’t be trials. The idea that the government would charge its own soldiers in this circumstance (or allow them to be charged) is ludicrous. > [@](#): > > If government chooses to keep the information secret, the pilots will have to pay the price. I don’t think that’s how it works. But this is a fantasy anyway, as evidenced by that fact that it involves one made-up legalistic term and a couple of fictional evidence requirements. ---
**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 11, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/112 "2012-10-11T04:25:44Z")
selected and reordered: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > …We’ve been slaughtering and torturing people pretty much at random for years now and just asserting that they were terrorists to justify it… then slaughtered people indiscriminately … along with the occasional fleeing family Those would be crimes unless ordered by the president. If ordered by the president he should be impeached. To some extent what you say is true, and I don’t defend it. > [@](#): > > Including, yes, people who came out of cover to help someone else we’d shot, And this is where the general argument falls apart. When you are justified in shooting your enemy you don’t stop and let others help him. And just because others are helping him doesn’t make them innocent non-combatant non-enemies either. They are most likely to be more enemy combatants. Your argument that we have done horrible things, not duly authorized in the midst of war has no bearing on the OPs argument. We have to give the CIC broad power to wage war in whatever means necessary to protect the nation. Having the CIC handcuffed by the legislature and the judiciary would be suicide\*. We have an election every four years to select that CIC, and every two years to select the oversight body for that CIC. It’s not my fault Americans are stupid and selected the people that they have to do those jobs. \*We would have lost our first war in 1812 and we’d all be speaking English now ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/113 "2012-10-11T04:46:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Those would be crimes unless ordered by the president. They would be war crimes regardless of who ordered them. > [@TriPolar](#): > > And this is where the general argument falls apart. When you are justified in shooting your enemy you don’t stop and let others help him. And just because others are helping him doesn’t make them innocent non-combatant non-enemies either. They are most likely to be more enemy combatants. Oh, garbage. When you attack a city killing people just for being there or machinegun some random car from a helicopter out of vague suspicion or shoot someone just for stepping out of his house, the people who try to help are likely to be family members or innocent bystanders. And “enemy combatant” just means “anyone outside the borders of America who is in range of American weaponry”. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Your argument that we have done horrible things, not duly authorized in the midst of war has no bearing on the OPs argument. We have to give the CIC broad power to wage war in whatever means necessary to protect the nation. Having the CIC handcuffed by the legislature and the judiciary would be suicide\*. We have an election every four years to select that CIC, and every two years to select the oversight body for that CIC. It’s not my fault Americans are stupid and selected the people that they have to do those jobs. Not stupid. Evil. Americans knew what Bush was and what he was doing when they re-elected him; they didn’t care. Nor do most Americans care about Obama doing much the same thing while covering up Bush’s crimes. Americans are pro-massacre and pro-torture. And Americans don’t fight wars to protect their nation, they fight wars for conquest and exploitation. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/114 "2012-10-11T04:59:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Like in Fallujah, where we forbade any male over ten or so to leave, then slaughtered people indiscriminately with the excuse that if they were there, they were terrorists/insurgents. . Please provide a reputable cite for this claim. Others have claimed you make stuff up, but I’d like to believe that’s crap. Anyway, if what you’re saying is true it should be easy for you to prove this. Please do so. Thanks. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/115 "2012-10-11T05:00:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is a made-up term without any legal meaning. > > Show me the part of the AUMF that requires them to share that evidence with the public and explain the reasoning behind the selection of any target. > > There won’t be trials. The idea that the government would charge its own soldiers in this circumstance (or allow them to be charged) is ludicrous. > > I don’t think that’s how it works. But this is a fantasy anyway, as evidenced by that fact that it involves one made-up legalistic term and a couple of fictional evidence requirements. We can use whatever term you want, but there is no evidence that strikes are against imminent threats or people identified in the 2001 authorization. Just because there is war does not mean that anyyone can be an approved target. The 2001 declaration may not require disclosure, but it does limit the authorized targets. The administration does say anything about why specific targets were killed. They do not say that everyone targeted was either an imminent threat or a person identified in the 2001 authorization. Your position is absurd because it ignores the limitations in the 2001 declaration. You are saying there is a war so the president can target for killing anyone he wants and we don’t need to see evidence that the killings were of legal targets. Hell, you don’t even demand that there be evidence that a finding was made that the person was an imminent threat or identified in the 2001 authorization; no, it’s just, there a war on, don’t question who the president kills. But the only legal killings are those of imminent threats and people identified in the 2001 declaration. You don’t know whether the killings are legal war actions. You don’t whether the targets were imminent threats or identied in the 2001 declaration. Just like you don’t know whether a random person who killed someone else acted in self defense. Do you think it would be right to say that the killer could say it was self defense and if was self dense, it would not be a crime, so let’s not charge anything, even if he does not specifically claim self defense and even if there is no evidence that is was self defense? No, with affirmative defense, like the pilot’s potential defenses that they were acting in defense of the country or under 2001 declaration, the defense needs to specifically plead its affirmative defense and present evidence. Your position means we have to assume the pilots and others have a valid affirmative defense without evidence and without them even specifically claiming they have a valid affirmative defense. The reason I want a local prosecutor to bring the case is because the local prosecutor is not tied to the people ordering the strikes. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/116 "2012-10-11T05:04:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They would be war crimes regardless of who ordered them. Then report them to the war police or some other imaginary law enforcement agency. > [@](#): > > Oh, garbage. When you attack a city killing people just for being there or machinegun some random car from a helicopter out of vague suspicion or shoot someone just for stepping out of his house, the people who try to help are likely to be family members or innocent bystanders. And “enemy combatant” just means “anyone outside the borders of America who is in range of American weaponry”. Random words unrelated to anything I said. > [@](#): > > Not stupid. Evil. Americans knew what Bush was and what he was doing when they re-elected him; they didn’t care. Nor do most Americans care about Obama doing much the same thing while covering up Bush’s crimes. Americans are pro-massacre and pro-torture. And Americans don’t fight wars to protect their nation, they fight wars for conquest and exploitation. Evil? Really? Like possessed by a supernatural force? And not stupid? And oh yeah, we’re really exploiting Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re coming out way ahead on those deals. That’s why we don’t have soaring debts and deficits. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/117 "2012-10-11T05:06:35Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > The reason I want a local prosecutor to bring the case is because the local prosecutor is not tied to the people ordering the strikes. Or is he just some guy in your pocket covering up your crime of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson. You are clearly guilty based on your own reasoning and failure to prove your innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/118 "2012-10-11T05:16:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > When you are justified in shooting your enemy you don’t stop and let others help him. Yes, you do. It is both morally abhorrent and in violation of the Geneva Conventions to shoot non-combatants for assisting the wounded. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/119 "2012-10-11T05:16:52Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Please provide a reputable cite for this claim. > > Others have claimed you make stuff up, but I’d like to believe that’s crap. > > Anyway, if what you’re saying is true it should be easy for you to prove this. > > Please do so. > > Thanks. I don’t “make things up”. I’m looking, but no; finding a “reputable cite” about something that happened 8 years ago is _not_ easy. Especially since most of the groups that would normally provide such a cite were using “embedded journalists”; aka military propagandists. I did find [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/world/struggle-for-iraq-combat-marines-falluja-still-face-return-relentless-fire.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm): > [@](#): > > And they have orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not. \ Does [Wikileaks](http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Fallujah_background) count? > [@](#): > > The occupying force on April 9 allowed about 70,000 women, children and elderly residents to leave the besieged city, but forced all males of military age to remain. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/120 "2012-10-11T05:23:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I don’t “make things up”. I’m looking, but no; finding a “reputable cite” about something that happened 8 years ago is _not_ easy. Especially since most of the groups that would normally provide such a cite were using “embedded journalists”; aka military propagandists. Nothing in the “cite” you link to verifies your claims. What did you base your claim on? If you’re basing your charges on something reputable it shouldn’t be difficult to link to. Please do so. Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=7)