Also from Slate comes an article about predators and other drones and whether it's a war crime to kill with remote control. This quote made me wonder:
Are the masters of "drone porn" committing war crimes by remote control? It's a bit shocking that more people aren't asking this question. I have a feeling that many of us, particularly liberal Obama supporters (like myself, for instance), haven't wanted to look too closely at what is being done in his name, in our name, when these remote-controlled and often tragically inaccurate weapons of small-group slaughter incinerate innocents from the sky, in what are essentially video-game massacres in which real people die.
"in his name"?! He's the president of the United States. If this person had written about drones 3 years ago he would have written "by the president". But because he's a supporter of Barack Obama it's "in his name".
This is not right.
Are the masters of "drone porn" committing war crimes by remote control? It's a bit shocking that more people aren't asking this question. I have a feeling that many of us, particularly liberal Obama supporters (like myself, for instance), haven't wanted to look too closely at what is being done in his name, in our name, when these remote-controlled and often tragically inaccurate weapons of small-group slaughter incinerate innocents from the sky, in what are essentially video-game massacres in which real people die.
"in his name"?! He's the president of the United States. If this person had written about drones 3 years ago he would have written "by the president". But because he's a supporter of Barack Obama it's "in his name".
This is not right.
8 comments:
Agreed -- but at least he acknowledges his point of view pretty explicitly.
It's a dumb-as-fuck thesis anyway. It's right up there with the media's fascination with twitter and sexting and all things that are born out of new shiny technology.
Killing people is ugly and morally difficult to justify, but necessary in war. Killing people with highly precise weapons that are orders of magnitude more successful in killing the intended targets and only the intended targets is way way way better than indiscriminately killing lots of innocents with unguided weapons. Unless the author is a prepared to make an argument that we should never engage in war with an un-uniformed enemy, there's no way on earth you can wring your hands over the fact that our super-precise weapons are not 100% effective.
The author also likes playing other word games -- "Drone porn"? Catchy term but also absolutely biased. And the whole semantics of criminals vs terrorists.
Yeah, the "drone porn" phrase drove me crazy. What's funny is that I thought it was clever, I mean all of us who have watched that night-vision stuff from the drones did it in that "don't let our wives know we're enjoying this" kind of way, which makes the phrase apt and clever. But using it 30 times while actually calling the drones a war crime is mixing your cleverness with an important accusation which is too discordant.
Agreed -- but at least he acknowledges his point of view pretty explicitly.
Weird he didn't use it on himself, because later in the article he shows he clearly understands that the bias is there when he says:
"To which not enough people in the political and media world have replied "Bullshit," as they would have if George Bush had been carrying out indiscriminate—at the very least, carelessly executed—assassinations of a religious sect's members."
Quick point on drones; these are manned vehicles. I mean, the pilot is at a remote location, but they aren't like torpedoes or missiles that go out and find their target.
I actually don't understand the "in his name" foul. Are you saying that he is distancing Obama from the decision? If so, that is bullshit, and I agree. Or, are you saying it is lofty language? I'm a little unclear.
Ug. I didn't finish my point about drones. They are obviously exactly as likely to be a tool for war crimes as any other weapon.
I actually don't understand the "in his name" foul. Are you saying that he is distancing Obama from the decision? If so, that is bullshit, and I agree. Or, are you saying it is lofty language? I'm a little unclear.
Exactly that "in his name" is distancing Obama from the blame. It's infuriating given the blame Bush took for things like this.
[Drones] are obviously exactly as likely to be a tool for war crimes as any other weapon.
Agreed, so the whole point is not strong as well. I mean we need to decide if we are conducting ourselves appropriately, but this is not the one most egregious area.
Exactly that "in his name" is distancing Obama from the blame. It's infuriating given the blame Bush took for things like this.
Okay, then yeah, that's obnoxious.
[Drones] are obviously exactly as likely to be a tool for war crimes as any other weapon.
I brought this up because I know Chuck Blanchard, who is the General Counsel for the Air Force, and he really hates it when people call these unmanned instead of remotely piloted. He thinks it omits the skill of the remote operator, I think.
On drones; I wonder how autonomous they are. You are completely right to say that there is a pilot watching every moment of the flight, remotely. And I am 100% sure that the pilot is capable of taking control of the UAV if needed. BUT, given that there must be a lag time to the control inputs, AND given that modern autopilots can be programmed to execute every moment of the flight from takeoff to recovery more reliably than a human can...
I just have a sneaking suspicion that the pilots responsible for the UAVs never "go manual." This is not to say they're not doing anything -- they're doing the part of the job that really needs a human -- evaluating the intel and deciding whether to push the button labeled "kill that guy." Which is as it should be.
Post a Comment