Drones, when they are used as an assassination tool instead of on a real battlefield, are extra-constitutional (not in accordance with the Constitution or international law) and counter-productive, because they likely produce exponentially more terrorists than they smite. And they kill innocents. And some deceptive definitions of terrorism and thus irrationally broad wavings of the wand has put our nation deep into an international quagmire. One day, if drones are not banned by a multi-lateral international convention, many more nations than presently would have these drones, replicating the example that the U.S. has set, and this would exacerbate the problem of these drones on a world wide scale, and that would not be a happy time for the planet, and unfortunately this follows the same pattern as the setting off of the atomic bombs in 1945. In other words, it seemed wise to some at the time, but in the long run it turned out to be very unwise.
What's going on with drones seems to be more an assasination policy than anything else, and the decisions are often arbitrary in nature, so-called collateral damage is huge according to reports, and made by faceless bureaucrats and underlings with little accountability, and leaves one person (the president) as judge, jury and executioner -- who defers some of these decisions to others. There is no intervening Court that could say this isn't right for one reason or another.
Drones should at least be controlled by an international convention before it becomes the second Damocles sword over the world (nuclear weapons being the other) instead of over just certain countries. The focus on terrorists should be narrow and strictly in self-defense. An MSNBC commentator said that drones should be perfected so as to work more reliably, but we wouldn't wish the Drone Age of easy push-button assassinations on any future time or any world.
[revised on 3/18/2013]
What's going on with drones seems to be more an assasination policy than anything else, and the decisions are often arbitrary in nature, so-called collateral damage is huge according to reports, and made by faceless bureaucrats and underlings with little accountability, and leaves one person (the president) as judge, jury and executioner -- who defers some of these decisions to others. There is no intervening Court that could say this isn't right for one reason or another.
Drones should at least be controlled by an international convention before it becomes the second Damocles sword over the world (nuclear weapons being the other) instead of over just certain countries. The focus on terrorists should be narrow and strictly in self-defense. An MSNBC commentator said that drones should be perfected so as to work more reliably, but we wouldn't wish the Drone Age of easy push-button assassinations on any future time or any world.
[revised on 3/18/2013]
Comments
Post a Comment