Drones: an ethics and privacy minefield

[thir]

One of the questions I am interested in is whether your can send drones (killermachines) against people with whom you are not at war.

And if that is ok, are anyone safe?

[js207]

One of the questions I am interested in is whether your can send drones (killermachines) against people with whom you are not at war.

And if that is ok, are anyone safe?

Define war. If my country goes and fires missiles at your country, puts troops there, starts shooting your people, is that war?

[leo9]

Define war. If my country goes and fires missiles at your country, puts troops there, starts shooting your people, is that war?

Well, yes, that's exactly the Pakistani government's complaint.

Officially, the US is their friend. But they're getting tired of having to reassure their people that yes, those families the Americans killed were definitely terrorists, and so were our soldiers whose base the Americans shot up, the Americans told our President so, and they're our friends so it must be true.

[Thorne]

One of the questions I am interested in is whether your can send drones (killermachines) against people with whom you are not at war.

That would seem to me to constitute an act of war by itself. Sending them against those with whom you ARE at war, even when they are hiding in someone else's country? That may be a grey area. It's one of the most difficult aspects of the "War on Terrorism". The terrorists, by definition, don't HAVE a country. They come from MANY countries. You are forced to attack them where you find them, and sometimes that means attacking them in countries that don't necessarily support terrorism, but don't have the wherewithal (political and/or military) to evict them. And when the terrorists are living within the local population, are an active part of the local culture, it become impossible to differentiate between the terrorist and the innocent. Of course, when the innocent are actually hiding and aiding the terrorists, they are no longer innocent, are they?

[js207]

Of course, when the innocent are actually hiding and aiding the terrorists, they are no longer innocent, are they?

That's the key really. Supposing a terrorist training camp were found in rural Wales. If the RAF go and bomb them - perhaps there's no time to get police or ground troops into the area - is that an act of war by the British government against itself? Of course not. Now, supposing rather than an RAF Tornado, an American F-15 from RAF Lakenheath did the same (possibly even flown by British personnel: there are a few British F-15 pilots as it happens, though I don't know if Lakenheath has any) - act of war, or act of friendship?

Really, it's a question of whether we as a country identify with the terrorists, or those fighting against them. I think the fact the Pakistanis are angry about American troops fighting with the terrorists in Pakistan, rather than with the terrorists themselves, speaks volumes about their allegiance.

[Thorne]

Really, it's a question of whether we as a country identify with the terrorists, or those fighting against them. I think the fact the Pakistanis are angry about American troops fighting with the terrorists in Pakistan, rather than with the terrorists themselves, speaks volumes about their allegiance.

Exactly. What we have to remember, too, is that the actions of the Pakistani government may not reflect the wishes of the Pakistani people, but in this case, from what I've read about it, the people are doing more to protect the terrorists than the government! So who are the innocents?

[thir]

Another article on drones from the Guardian:


With its deadly drones, the US is fighting a coward's war

"These power-damaged people have been granted the chance to fulfil one of humankind's abiding fantasies: to vaporise their enemies, as if with a curse or a prayer, effortlessly and from a safe distance."

"The CIA, which is running the undeclared and unacknowledged drone war in Pakistan, insists that there have been no recent civilian casualties. So does Obama's chief counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan. "

"As a report last year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism showed, of some 2,300 people killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004 until August 2011, between 392 and 781 appear to have been civilians; 175 were childre"

"This danger is acknowledged in a remarkably candid assessment published by the UK's Ministry of Defence, which also deploys drones, and has also used them to kill civilians. It maintains that the undeclared air war in Pakistan and Yemen "is totally a function of the existence of an unmanned capability – it is unlikely a similar scale of force would be used if this capability were not available". Citing the German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, it warns that the brutality of war seldom escalates to its absolute form, partly because of the risk faced by one's own forces. Without risk, there's less restraint. With these unmanned craft, governments can fight a coward's war, a god's war, harming only the unnamed."

"The danger is likely to escalate as drone warfare becomes more automated and the lines of accountability less clear. Last week the US navy unveiled a drone that can land on an aircraft carrier without even a remote pilot. The Los Angeles Times warned that "it could usher in an era when death and destruction can be dealt by machines operating semi-independently". The British assessment suggests that within a few years drones assisted by artificial intelligence could make their own decisions about whom to kill and whom to spare. Sorry sir, computer says yes."

"Drones grant governments new opportunities to snuff out opposition of any kind, terrorist or democrat. "

"
In October last year, a 16-year-old called Tariq Aziz was travelling through North Waziristan in Pakistan with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. Their car was hit by a missile from a US drone. As always, their deaths made them guilty: if we killed them, they must be terrorists. But they weren't. Tariq was about to start work with the human rights group Reprieve, taking pictures of the aftermath of drone strikes. A mistake? Possibly. But it is also possible that he was murdered out of self-interest. If you have such powers, if you are not held to account by Congress, the media or the American people, why not use them?
"

"The danger to democracy, and not just in Pakistan but one day perhaps everywhere, should be evident. Yet, as fatalistic as the ancient Greeks, we drift into this with scarcely a murmur of debate, leaving the gods to decide."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...us-cowards-war

I am aware that this may have crept up on people, the drones have been underway for a while, but now they are really used. And in contries where no was has been declared, which, in my opinion and according to international laws, makes it murder.

[leo9]

"The danger is likely to escalate as drone warfare becomes more automated and the lines of accountability less clear. Last week the US navy unveiled a drone that can land on an aircraft carrier without even a remote pilot. The Los Angeles Times warned that "it could usher in an era when death and destruction can be dealt by machines operating semi-independently". The British assessment suggests that within a few years drones assisted by artificial intelligence could make their own decisions about whom to kill and whom to spare. Sorry sir, computer says yes."

Way back when America's first primitive "smart" weapons were being field-tested on the North Vietnamese people, someone suggested it was time the First Law of Robotics was incorporated into international law.

Alas, it looks as if it's now too late: any such law would be treated with the same contempt as national boundaries and the rules of war.

[leo9]

That's the key really. Supposing a terrorist training camp were found in rural Wales. If the RAF go and bomb them - perhaps there's no time to get police or ground troops into the area - is that an act of war by the British government against itself? Of course not. Now, supposing rather than an RAF Tornado, an American F-15 from RAF Lakenheath did the same (possibly even flown by British personnel: there are a few British F-15 pilots as it happens, though I don't know if Lakenheath has any) - act of war, or act of friendship?

Fascinating question, so let's make it more accurate. Suppose the US knew about the camp but didn't tell the UK government, but just went ahead and took it out (along with any civilians nearby - hey, they were around, they were probably in league with the bad guys.) Well, knowing our government, I've no doubt at all that they would tug their forelocks and say "Thank you kindly, Master." But I'm not sure the general public would be so universally grateful.

Back in the days of the Troubles, the British military intelligence knew the IRA had bases in Eire, and in some cases probably had the map references and a list of the people there. But having an old fashioned respect for international law, we didn't send a plane over to bomb them. The interesting question is, if we had, do you think it would have weakened the IRA (whose entire political platform, remember, was that they were fighting the Brits on behalf of all the Irish people,) or improved co-operation with the Irish government?

Really, it's a question of whether we as a country identify with the terrorists, or those fighting against them. I think the fact the Pakistanis are angry about American troops fighting with the terrorists in Pakistan, rather than with the terrorists themselves, speaks volumes about their allegiance.

If only it were that simple.

If someone invaded my country to attack someone they (not I) had a problem with, I would feel justified in protesting even if I had not the slightest sympathy with their targets. Wouldn't you?

[thir]

If someone invaded my country to attack someone they (not I) had a problem with, I would feel justified in protesting even if I had not the slightest sympathy with their targets. Wouldn't you?

And that is the problem in a nut shell: Killing by drones is highly questionable in itself, but doing it in a country not declared war with, is simply murder.

I cannot understand why this has not caused an outrage. The fact that is hasn't I find disturbing in the extreme.

Has there been so much killing that nothing matters anymore???