# 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:** 7
**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, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/121 "2012-10-11T05:33:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. I am not known to have killed Simpson. The drone pilots are known to have killed targeted people. The question is whether they have an affirmative defense, for which they bear the burden. I reported you for claiming I am a murder. ---
**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, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/122 "2012-10-11T05:38:00Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Then report them to the war police or some other imaginary law enforcement agency. I’m well aware that America is militarily powerful enough that it can rampage across the world as it pleases. Of course, if “if you can do it, it’s OK” is the standard you are using then there was nothing at all wrong about Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attack, or for that matter the Nazi Holocaust. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Random words unrelated to anything I said. Wrong on both counts, and not a rebuttal. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Evil? Really? Like possessed by a supernatural force? No. :rolleyes: I didn’t say a thing about the supernatural. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > If you’re basing your charges on something reputable it shouldn’t be difficult to link to. You actually think I save all my links going back to 2004? I’m not sure if I even had home Internet access that far back. ---
**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, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/123 "2012-10-11T05:52:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’m well aware that America is militarily powerful enough that it can rampage across the world as it pleases. Of course, if “if you can do it, it’s OK” is the standard you are using then there was nothing at all wrong about Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attack, or for that matter the Nazi Holocaust. This is not a debate about what is OK. It’s about the legality of prosecuting people for these actions. > [@](#): > > Wrong on both counts, and not a rebuttal. Then maybe you can find a way to restate that doesn’t ignore that the basis of my statement was justified actions. > [@](#): > > No. :rolleyes: I didn’t say a thing about the supernatural. Then what’s your definition of evil? The one I hear most often involves supernatural possession. I assumed you believed Americans were motivated by Satan. [/QUOTE] ---
**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, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/124 "2012-10-11T05:54:06Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > You sound like the people who say waterboarding is not torture because our government waterboarded people and our government does not torture people, so water boarding is not torture, instead of looking at the evidence. > [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > I reported you for claiming I am a murder. Happy to hear it. I’m sure you’d never dream of being insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/125 "2012-10-11T06:00:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > . . . Then what’s your definition of evil? The one I hear most often involves supernatural possession. I assumed you believed Americans were motivated by Satan. Huh? Since when does evil require the supernatural? Evil is the intentional causation of unnecessary harm or pain. (This, of course, leaves open the incredibly messy issue of “necessary.” The point is that the dentist who yanks your tooth isn’t evil, even though he does cause you pain. It isn’t intentional, and it may be necessary.) Is war necessary? Sometimes, all other options are simply not feasible. Civilians get hurt. That, too, is sometimes not avoidable. If you can figure a way to fight wars where civilians don’t get hurt, I’m pretty sure it would be welcomed. If you can figure a way for civilization to stop making war entirely, that, too, would be greeted with cheers. ---
**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, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/126 "2012-10-11T06:07:05Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Huh? Since when does evil require the supernatural? Evil is the intentional causation of unnecessary harm or pain. (This, of course, leaves open the incredibly messy issue of “necessary.” The point is that the dentist who yanks your tooth isn’t evil, even though he does cause you pain. It isn’t intentional, and it may be necessary.) I’m just using the same kind of distortion of concepts that he is. > [@](#): > > Is war necessary? Sometimes, all other options are simply not feasible. > > Civilians get hurt. That, too, is sometimes not avoidable. If you can figure a way to fight wars where civilians don’t get hurt, I’m pretty sure it would be welcomed. If you can figure a way for civilization to stop making war entirely, that, too, would be greeted with cheers. There’s a simple way for civilization to stop making war entirely, but it doesn’t leave anybody to be greeted or do the cheering. ---
**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 11, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/127 "2012-10-11T12:53:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 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 … But note what I’m thereby saying about our commander-in-chief: I likewise figure that (a) he’d RATHER no innocent civilians be killed, but (b) he’s willing to tolerate accidental casualties. If you’re not really sure I should be charged, then why charge him for that same _you’re-not-sure-its-condemnable_ indifference? ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/128 "2012-10-11T14:41:11Z")
This thread confuses me. The use of the US military is governed by Title 10 and Title 50 of the US Code, and our treaty obligations according to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The US military does not exist outside Federal Law… it’s actions and the UCMJ are specifically authorized and governed by the afforementioned sections. I do not understand how a “drone strike” is different from any other military action… whether it be airstrike, artillery, infantry, whatever. Also, the killing of nonparticipants in pursuit of valid military objectives is not a crime and is specifically addressed in the Geneva Conventions. Many of these arguments appear to be arguments against war in general… and that’s fine if that’s what floats your boat. Just make sure you understand the legal foundation of the military and military actions before you claim something is “illegal.” ---
**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, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/129 "2012-10-11T15:07:19Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. He produced a cite, now you are the one who has nothing but hand-waving. ---
**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 11, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/130 "2012-10-11T15:08:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But note what I’m thereby saying about our commander-in-chief: I likewise figure that (a) he’d RATHER no innocent civilians be killed, but (b) he’s willing to tolerate accidental casualties. “Accidental”? I don’t think you can call dropping a bomb on someone “accidental”. Let’s not sugar coat this, Obama would rather no innocent civilians be killed, but he’s willing to kill them anyway to achieve his goal. And that includes children. [This study](http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/organization/149662/doc/slspublic/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf) by Stanford Law and NYU into drone attacks in Pakistan states: “The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.” and “TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.3 TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals.” If these stats are to be believed, the drone attacks are better at killing children (about 5% of the victims), than we are high level targets. ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/131 "2012-10-11T15:14:19Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > We can use whatever term you want Then let’s use terms that are relevant and mean something. > [@](#): > > 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. They’re not required to say those things (although they have confirmed the deaths of some people, including al-Libi and al-Awlaki). If you believe otherwise, quote the part of the law that says they have to identify the targets and explain their reasoning to the public. The law authorizes the killing of people who are a threat and/or tied to Al Qaeda, and the government says that authorizes these strikes. > [@](#): > > You are saying there is a war so the president can target for killing anyone he wants I didn’t say this. You know what the legislation says, apparently. > [@](#): > > and we don’t need to see evidence that the killings were of legal targets. I’m not talking about what we “need.” I am saying the president is not required to show that evidence to the public and the idea that he would do so or be required to do so is daffy. The president is absolutely entitled to keep some information classified for national security reasons. I always want the government to disclose more information than it does. But I also think that your proposal here doesn’t work at all, and I don’t think trumped-up murder charges are a good way to make the government disclose information you want to see (since it wouldn’t work even if someone brought this case). > [@](#): > > No, with affirmative defense, like the pilot’s potential defenses that they were acting in defense of the country or under 2001 declaration This is still not an affirmative defense. That will not change no matter how many times you say it and no matter how many times you ignore explanations to the contrary. Criminal law does not apply here. ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/132 "2012-10-11T15:25:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But note what I’m thereby saying about our commander-in-chief: I likewise figure that (a) he’d RATHER no innocent civilians be killed, but (b) he’s willing to tolerate accidental casualties. If you’re not really sure I should be charged, then why charge him for that same _you’re-not-sure-its-condemnable_ indifference? He has taken the affirmative step of ordering drone strikes. You have only voted for him. Besides, I voted for him too. He was the lesser of two evils, and will be in this election cycle too. Of course, I was not hoping for a continuation of drone strikes when I voted for him. Au contraire. Gotta have different standards for different degrees of complicity. And on edit: what **Hamlet** said. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/133 "2012-10-11T15:43:11Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > This thread confuses me. The use of the US military is governed by Title 10 and Title 50 of the US Code, and our treaty obligations according to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The US military does not exist outside Federal Law… it’s actions and the UCMJ are specifically authorized and governed by the afforementioned sections. I do not understand how a “drone strike” is different from any other military action… whether it be airstrike, artillery, infantry, whatever. Also, the killing of nonparticipants in pursuit of valid military objectives is not a crime and is specifically addressed in the Geneva Conventions. > > Many of these arguments appear to be arguments against war in general… and that’s fine if that’s what floats your boat. Just make sure you understand the legal foundation of the military and military actions before you claim something is “illegal.” On top of all that, how would a local prosecutor in Las Vegas assert jurisdiction over a murder that happened in another country? Legally speaking, did the alleged crime take place in Afghanistan or Las Vegas? I think the former because that’s where the person was actually killed. Again that’s ignoring all the quite relevant information you posted that shows the legal basis for military action by individual members of the military. Everything you posted certainly seems to supersede any jurisdiction arguments, but it seems to me that any alleged crime was not committed in Nevada if the person was killed in another country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/134 "2012-10-11T15:44:15Z")
> [@Naive\_Evian](#): > > 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. Could you tell me what the elements of the specific charge of homicide you feel can be brought? With a cite to the jurisdiction’s legal code, or just name the jurisdiction, if you wish. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/135 "2012-10-11T16:55:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > He produced a cite, now you are the one who has nothing but hand-waving. His “cite” didn’t claim what he said it claimed. I asked him again to produce a credible one that verifies the claims he made and he’s now admitting, in post 122, that he can’t. That’s not hand waving. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/136 "2012-10-11T17:12:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You actually think I save all my links going back to 2004? I’m not sure if I even had home Internet access that far back. You made an extremely reckless charge(that the US military refused to allow ten and eleven year old children to leave Fallujah and then deliberately murdered them)that you’re now conceding that you can’t provide a reputable cite for your claim. In short, until you can provide compelling evidence for it, we should assume your claim was bullshit. Obviously, that does not mean that you’re lying, but more likely that you have some vague memory of something from 8 years ago which is not what most of us would consider terribly credible. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/137 "2012-10-11T17:45:36Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You made an extremely reckless charge(that the US military refused to allow ten and eleven year old children to leave Fallujah and then deliberately murdered them)that you’re now conceding that you can’t provide a reputable cite for your claim. > > In short, until you can provide compelling evidence for it, we should assume your claim was bullshit. > > Obviously, that does not mean that you’re lying, but more likely that you have some vague memory of something from 8 years ago which is not what most of us would consider terribly credible. Perhaps [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qgfUjzbj4) (starting around 2:35) is what **Der Trihs** was referring to. If so, that would be bad enough (I am aware of the controversial nature of [this documentary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre) and do not take its claims at face value). Apparently the consensus in this thread is that drone strikes in the “War on Terror” are just peachy because they are not formally illegal. I find that to be a repulsive viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/138 "2012-10-11T17:48:10Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Perhaps [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qgfUjzbj4) (starting around 2:35) is what **Der Trihs** was referring to. If so, that would be bad enough (I am aware of the controversial nature of [this documentary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre) and do not take its claims at face value). > > Apparently the consensus in this thread is that drone strikes in the “War on Terror” are just peachy because they are not formally illegal. I find that to be a repulsive viewpoint. What I see people saying is that because they are not formally illegal, the pilots cannot be charged with murder. “Peachy,” I’m not seeing. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/139 "2012-10-11T18:08:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What I see people saying is that because they are not formally illegal, the pilots cannot be charged with murder. “Peachy,” I’m not seeing. Fair enough. This discussion of legal niceties is just so much bullshit to me. If anyone is interested, I have started another [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668426) to discuss the moral dimensions of this policy. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283/140 "2012-10-11T18:17:42Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Fair enough. > > This discussion of legal niceties is just so much bullshit to me. > > If anyone is interested, I have started another [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668426) to discuss the moral dimensions of this policy. It would have been better if the OP had done that in this debate. The OP presumes that drone strikes are a formal crime, and hasn’t paid attention to the overwhelming evidence that it isn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-drone-pilots-face-homicide-charges/637283.md?page=8)