Although I agree killing people is wrong, drones strikes are not killing american citizens, it is in the context of an armed, foreign conflict.
...and I take it by your comment that it is perfectly fine if another country sends drones into the US to take out 'suspected operatives'?
But drone strikes and other military actions are distinctly outside the realm of criminal law. It is a category error to try to apply the concepts of a 'fair trial' to these situations.
There are entirely different set of rules and agreements that are associated with armed conflict. Even the moral/ethical arguments are entirely different within the context of armed conflict vs criminal law.
One of the reasons our public discussion on these issues is so muddled is that these two contexts are often confused.
As an example, many critics of the US policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay will argue that we have failed to give them a 'fair trial'. But that is attempting to insert criminal law concepts into an armed conflict. It isn't necessary to prove that a crime has been committed in order to detain people in an armed conflict. Different rules apply.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't arguments to be made against the detainee program, but those arguments need to be made in the scope of the legal framework accorded armed conflict not in the scope of the legal framework for criminal activities.
I cannot point to a stranger in the street and say "That man is a murderer" and have an official immediately go over and dispatch him with extreme prejudice.
If we say that 'point and kill' executions are OK outside the realm of formal war, then pretty much _everyone_ in the world is living with a sword of Damocles over their heads.
What "suspected operatives" in the US would you be talking about?
You know, the EXACT same definition that is used to select targets for US drone strikes.
Can you answer these questions for us? Do we strike targets without high enough precision, or wrongfully? Who exactly are we fighting? Can you link us to some sources we might not have already seen?
Yes, there have been lives snuffed out with drones, and yes, there might have been collateral damage. I think it's safe to assume in most cases it's a "them or us" situation.
"War is hell." - Sherman, and yes it's an ironic quote because like the earlier context it contains, I've never experienced war.
That has been shown to be true, whether in Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan.
That doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there aren't arguments to be made to minimize civilian casualties or just plain strategic arguments against the practices, it just means that it isn't helpful to try to frame the discussion as if we are talking criminal actions.
That was my point, even if I didn't make very well.
The American government isn't supposed to be some even-handed dispenser of global justice; its job is to protect American citizens and their interests.
Are you implying that you can dispense with human rights when it comes to foreign civilians? I am also very frightened by the fact that you are, apparently, condoning it to "protect [American citizens] interests". I hope that interests means safety here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_S...