SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Armed pilotless drone aircraft are the weapon of choice these days in our military forays into the Middle East.
Drones can fly low. Gen. James Cartwright of the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained that for Libya, their "ability to get down lower" gave them better visibility, thereby getting a better bead on a target. And of course with no pilot the only risk is loss of the aircraft. We also are using them in Yemen and Pakistan.
But there is a downside. Drones, say critics, make war too easy. If a president doesn't have to be concerned about putting our youth "in harm's way," it becomes much easier to go to war. Congress may lose control.
Federal law requires eventual approval by Congress if the president gets us into "hostilities." In Libya, when members of Congress claimed Obama was skirting that law, he claimed we were not in "hostilities" because we had no boots on the ground.
The information about the whereabouts of a "militant" may or may not be accurate. Last year the U.N. official responsible for tracking extrajudicial executions questioned the drone killings as arbitrary executions. When a drone attack occurs, typically the U.S. officials claim that those killed were "militants," while local officials often claim civilians were hit. Depending on whose study one believes, one can find a wide range of ratios of "militants" to bystanders killed.
Killing with drones means killing without a trial. But going back to the 1960s, the United States has signed human rights treaties that outlaw arbitrary killing. Drone killings skirt these safeguards. No indictment. No judge or jury. No defense.
But, says the Obama administration, in war one can kill without a trial. The drone killings are premised on the "militants" being participants in the "war on terror," even though Obama avoids that Bush-era term.
But is there such a war, or is the war on terrorism a convenient legal fiction? Even if "militants" can lawfully be killed on a war rationale, that does not let us kill in the territory of another country. Pakistan in particular has reacted negatively, though there is debate over whether Pakistan condones our use of drones.
If some other country were sending pilotless aircraft over Nebraska to kill people they regard as threats, Nebraskans might not be too happy. Negative reaction to our drone attacks has been strongest in Pakistan, where drones are regarded as a terrorist weapon. Residents of certain regions in Pakistan say they never know when a missile might fall out of the sky.
The resentment generated by drones carries serious risks. Last year a man named Faisal Shahzad stood before a judge in federal court in New York. Shahzad was charged with parking an explosive-laden van near Times Square. Had the van exploded, hundreds would have died. Judge Miriam Cedarbaum asked Shahzad if he had any concern about the numbers of innocents he might have killed.
"The drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq," Shahzad replied, "they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill everybody." Shahzad said he was "part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people."
Our drones may be on the cutting edge of military technology, but in old-fashioned terms, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot.
© 2023 The Sacramento Bee
Armed pilotless drone aircraft are the weapon of choice these days in our military forays into the Middle East.
Drones can fly low. Gen. James Cartwright of the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained that for Libya, their "ability to get down lower" gave them better visibility, thereby getting a better bead on a target. And of course with no pilot the only risk is loss of the aircraft. We also are using them in Yemen and Pakistan.
But there is a downside. Drones, say critics, make war too easy. If a president doesn't have to be concerned about putting our youth "in harm's way," it becomes much easier to go to war. Congress may lose control.
Federal law requires eventual approval by Congress if the president gets us into "hostilities." In Libya, when members of Congress claimed Obama was skirting that law, he claimed we were not in "hostilities" because we had no boots on the ground.
The information about the whereabouts of a "militant" may or may not be accurate. Last year the U.N. official responsible for tracking extrajudicial executions questioned the drone killings as arbitrary executions. When a drone attack occurs, typically the U.S. officials claim that those killed were "militants," while local officials often claim civilians were hit. Depending on whose study one believes, one can find a wide range of ratios of "militants" to bystanders killed.
Killing with drones means killing without a trial. But going back to the 1960s, the United States has signed human rights treaties that outlaw arbitrary killing. Drone killings skirt these safeguards. No indictment. No judge or jury. No defense.
But, says the Obama administration, in war one can kill without a trial. The drone killings are premised on the "militants" being participants in the "war on terror," even though Obama avoids that Bush-era term.
But is there such a war, or is the war on terrorism a convenient legal fiction? Even if "militants" can lawfully be killed on a war rationale, that does not let us kill in the territory of another country. Pakistan in particular has reacted negatively, though there is debate over whether Pakistan condones our use of drones.
If some other country were sending pilotless aircraft over Nebraska to kill people they regard as threats, Nebraskans might not be too happy. Negative reaction to our drone attacks has been strongest in Pakistan, where drones are regarded as a terrorist weapon. Residents of certain regions in Pakistan say they never know when a missile might fall out of the sky.
The resentment generated by drones carries serious risks. Last year a man named Faisal Shahzad stood before a judge in federal court in New York. Shahzad was charged with parking an explosive-laden van near Times Square. Had the van exploded, hundreds would have died. Judge Miriam Cedarbaum asked Shahzad if he had any concern about the numbers of innocents he might have killed.
"The drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq," Shahzad replied, "they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill everybody." Shahzad said he was "part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people."
Our drones may be on the cutting edge of military technology, but in old-fashioned terms, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Armed pilotless drone aircraft are the weapon of choice these days in our military forays into the Middle East.
Drones can fly low. Gen. James Cartwright of the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained that for Libya, their "ability to get down lower" gave them better visibility, thereby getting a better bead on a target. And of course with no pilot the only risk is loss of the aircraft. We also are using them in Yemen and Pakistan.
But there is a downside. Drones, say critics, make war too easy. If a president doesn't have to be concerned about putting our youth "in harm's way," it becomes much easier to go to war. Congress may lose control.
Federal law requires eventual approval by Congress if the president gets us into "hostilities." In Libya, when members of Congress claimed Obama was skirting that law, he claimed we were not in "hostilities" because we had no boots on the ground.
The information about the whereabouts of a "militant" may or may not be accurate. Last year the U.N. official responsible for tracking extrajudicial executions questioned the drone killings as arbitrary executions. When a drone attack occurs, typically the U.S. officials claim that those killed were "militants," while local officials often claim civilians were hit. Depending on whose study one believes, one can find a wide range of ratios of "militants" to bystanders killed.
Killing with drones means killing without a trial. But going back to the 1960s, the United States has signed human rights treaties that outlaw arbitrary killing. Drone killings skirt these safeguards. No indictment. No judge or jury. No defense.
But, says the Obama administration, in war one can kill without a trial. The drone killings are premised on the "militants" being participants in the "war on terror," even though Obama avoids that Bush-era term.
But is there such a war, or is the war on terrorism a convenient legal fiction? Even if "militants" can lawfully be killed on a war rationale, that does not let us kill in the territory of another country. Pakistan in particular has reacted negatively, though there is debate over whether Pakistan condones our use of drones.
If some other country were sending pilotless aircraft over Nebraska to kill people they regard as threats, Nebraskans might not be too happy. Negative reaction to our drone attacks has been strongest in Pakistan, where drones are regarded as a terrorist weapon. Residents of certain regions in Pakistan say they never know when a missile might fall out of the sky.
The resentment generated by drones carries serious risks. Last year a man named Faisal Shahzad stood before a judge in federal court in New York. Shahzad was charged with parking an explosive-laden van near Times Square. Had the van exploded, hundreds would have died. Judge Miriam Cedarbaum asked Shahzad if he had any concern about the numbers of innocents he might have killed.
"The drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq," Shahzad replied, "they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill everybody." Shahzad said he was "part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people."
Our drones may be on the cutting edge of military technology, but in old-fashioned terms, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot.