I find the controversy over drones to be a little skewed. Here’s how it usually goes. Drone strikes have increased and usually result in the deaths of innocents. Therefore, drones use should be banned. This assumes that either they won’t kill anybody without using drones or the other methods of death-dealing are somehow acceptable.
A more legitimate beef may be that it is a problem that CIA is using drones, that drones should be solely a military weapon. It’s almost like the CIA was shooting off cruise missiles. It doesn’t sit right. But that issue is more about what capabilities the CIA should have access to rather than whether drone use is ever justified.
I think the debate is focusing on the wrong wrong. The tragedy is the unlawful killing, not the drone itself. The focus is too much on the drones, and not the war. Take away the drones and they will still find a way to kill. They should focus the argument on the over-arching issue of war not one tool used in the war.
Now, I’m not supporting drone strikes; I’m saying that the anti-drone campaign misses the point. Ending drone strikes won’t end the killing or the war. The CIA and military will continue to shoot people from far away.
Another issue is using drones for surveillance. Are the drones capable of doing something that the government can’t do already? They’ve already got cameras watching you. You see, there are these things called satellites.
Instead of focusing on drones (merely a tool) demand an end to deaths and surveillance without due process.
For now, I’m not overly concerned about drones. Just let me know when they intend to launch unmanned vehicles with advanced artificial intelligence systems. I’ll want to stockpile my bunker before Skynet becomes self aware. (Oh, crap! I just told you about the bunker. Now the mob will be at my doorstep when TSHTF. Forget I said anything. There is no spoon.)