Drone strikes: What the U.S. could learn from Israel [Blowback]

[bemildred]

Xpost in I/P.

The Times raises profoundly important questions regarding the drone policy initially implemented by President Bush and significantly increased by President Obama. The editorial, while not condemning U.S. drone policy, suggests that moral and legal questions must be addressed, particularly regarding "the process by which the military and the CIA determine who belongs on a target list."

The U.S. could learn a lot from Israel's policy on targeted killings. I know -- I was involved in its implementation.

I support using drones to eliminate terrorists, but I believe their legality and morality depend on the development and implementation of a criteria-based decision-making model. The Israel Defense Forces take such an approach to targeted killings, going to great lengths to gather and verify intelligence to ensure that potential targets are, in fact, still actively involved in terrorism. As has been documented extensively, excessive collateral damage both violates international law and provides effective recruiting posters for terrorist organizations.

In any targeted killing decision, three important questions must be answered: First, can the target be identified accurately and reliably? Second, does the threat the target poses justify an attack at that moment or are there alternatives? And finally, what is the extent of the anticipated collateral damage?

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/09/drone-strikes-us-learn-israel-blowback.html

[pscot]

1. Drone war is the moral equivalent

of setting a spring gun to protect your property. Someone's gonna die, but you don't know who.

[bemildred]

2. It's state terrorism, is what it is.

We really don't seem to know how to get by without it.

[The Northerner]

3. K&R n/t

[xchrom]

4. recommend