4 votes

The latest double speak from the NY Times: "The Moral Case for Drones"

Excerpt:

"So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare.

“I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” said Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.

“You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just?” Mr. Strawser said. But for extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents, he said, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-ca...

Well of course a former Air Force officer and current professor at a Naval school is going to put the best possible spin on Skynet drones to take out "suspected terrorists". He knows from whence his paycheck comes from.

The larger issue than drones is the kind of mentality that employs them---Just how accurate is the military intel (Can you say "Oxymoron"?) in targeting "suspected terrorists"? What is the break point percentage of accuracy that gives a green light to kill? 90%, 80%?, at least 50% positive????

Who answers and takes responsibility for the collateral damage? How do they verify that they even got the bad guys? It's not like there can be a lot of recognizable body parts left. Does the CIA go in like CSI to take fingerprints and DNA samples? Do they just keep authorizing drone attacks over and over again to make sure?

Here's another apologist argument by the drone cultists:

"By the count of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, which has done perhaps the most detailed and skeptical study of the strikes, the C.I.A. operators are improving their performance. The bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureau’s count, just three of the 152 people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians."

Oh wow! all those innocent people were not killed for nothing! The CIA is becoming a better marksmen! Just give them enough human targets, and they will become more efficient killers! What's a few dead innocents anyway when you are practicing to protect our flag, baseball, and mom's apple pie?

Of course, we are have to take the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London's word for it. I'm sure they went firsthand to each and every drone attack site and investigated the civilian deaths. This sounds like the historical inverse of "body counts" in Vietnam that were padded to make General Westmoreland believe he was winning the war via attrition.

Our nation is becoming a death-cult. We have replaced our symbol of freedom, the Eagle, with a technological terror, the faceless drone. Our government has under the cloak of legality segued to condone enhanced-interrogation via water-boarding to justifying executive individual assassination on a global-wide basis.

The underground mutant worshipers of the A-Bomb in the movie, "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" will become our destiny if we don't stop the rationalization of human death for the so-called greater good.