- Under what circumstances should the U.S. drop missiles on people we’re reasonably sure are terrorists.
- How sure do we need to be that they’re terrorists?
- Who should the evidence be presented to?
- Does it make a shred of difference if the accused is a U.S. Citizen?
- What level of legal process is it possible to give somebody who is not in custody and doesn’t show up at court when given an opportunity to raise a defense?
- Is a killing that is acceptable on one side of a border become unacceptable on the other side?
- What is the next best alternative in a given situation?
- In what manner is a missile from a drone substantively different than any other way of killing somebody?
- How willing are we to accept foreseeable civilian casualties?
- Does the citizenship status of civilian casualties matter?
- To what degree should we hold superiors accountable for the abuses comitted by underlings? Does it matter if these abuses were unforseen? Unforseeable?
- Once abuse is uncovered, what actions should be taken?
- In what manner should victims be compensated?
- Is there a balance between security and transparency? How do we strike it?
- How do we address
I’d like to add to this list of question, “Why is our answer different for unmanned drones than any other assassination tactic”?
If our government acknowledges the necessity to adhere to constitutional guidelines for due process, why does that suddenly change when we label the accused an outlaw? What is it about the philosophical and legal justifications for restricting the government’s ability to kill without oversight that render them inapplicable to this situation? As far as I can tell, the new technology of unmanned drones was used as an excuse to change hundreds of years of legal precedent.