Why the furor over drones? Even weaponized drones?

[Stinky The Clown]

They're no different than police helicopters, or police assault rifles. Or any other weapon the government uses against citizens.

There are rules that govern their use. I think the term is "due process".

A government official can follow due process - or not - and order one of us dead. What difference does the weapon or the weapon platform make?

I realize there is some mistrust of government. Greater or lesser degrees, for sure.

Given the shitstorm that would follow a domestic drone strike on a US citizen, I think we have other weapons to be more worried about.

It seems to me its not about the government owned weapon. It is about the order to use it.

[Buzz Clik]

1. +1

Back in stride, Stink.

[Bay Boy]

2. Isn't a drone just a more modern

cruise missile? No one said much about those in their day.

[Trajan]

3. A cynical statement

The fact that they fly autonomously over inhabited areas is enough to object to .... let alone it's ability to spy or kill ...

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Cell phones let assassins communicate the location of their targets.

Should we rail against them?

The issue is not the machine. It is the use of the machine.

[Trajan]

6. yes ...

using the machine to hover over inhabited areas to spy on and/or kill citizens would be an awful violation of our civil rights ...

Nobody is objecting to the existence of them .... Your statement is cynical in that it is intentionally confusing that difference for the purpose of argument ...

Surely DUers will fall into this tidy little trap you set ... Wasn't that the reason you started this thread to begin with ?

[GodlessBiker]

8. Is it not already lawful to spy on people who are in plain view?

I mean, rightly or wrongly, the government already sends planes and helicopters over land to spy and determine whether unlawful activity is taking place, such as growing weed.

[ThomThom]

38. but you can't just kill them without due process

I think that is the problem. Due process means a judge, trial, and jury. If a suspect resists arrest more extreme measures can be taken but just blowing someone away is wrong and unconstitutional.

[cliffordu]

66. Ask John Dillinger what he feels about this.

He was killed by direct order from Hoover, IIRC.

[DirkGently]

5. Because drones are the due-process-free weapon of choice. Sterile. Neat.

There is a psychological component to "bloodless" warfare where U.S. forces are not physically present. This is being exploited in Pakistan, et al (???) because the public is decidedly less outraged about illegal warfare in which no Americans are at risk.

If the President had sent in a CIA assassin or "Seal Team Six" to murder the supposed Al Quaeda-linked American citizen and his son, it would have been received differently than the "Oh well, another robot missile strike -- watchout who you hang around with, kid" that we saw even here on DU.

We're being conditioned to accept "extrajudicial killing" when it's carried out by remote-controlled machine, and it's working quite well.

[quaker bill]

18. Most who die here prior to "due process"

meet their maker at the wrong end of a handgun. We seem to accept that quite well 98% of the time. Given what I have been reading, drones are not nearly as well accepted.

[DirkGently]

20. Government sanctioned killings are a different topic from handgun murders.

[quaker bill]

22. I believe it is sanctioned when done in the process of law enforcement

"justifiable" I believe is the term used. I don't think these are called "murders".

[DirkGently]

27. Okay. And a fleet of anonymous flying murder robots will improve this how?

[quaker bill]

49. First

The notion that these are robots is incorrect. They are not automated, just flown by people remotely. Second there is no evidence that weeaponized versions will be used here by other than the military, and obviously only under the extreme circumstances where the military might get involved domestically. Thirdly, I do not think that under such extreme circumstances, drones would be the first choice. Historically these rare occasions are "boots on the ground" situations.

Finally, I never said or implied that drones would be an improvement. I just said that people die in the process of arrest pretty much every day, usually at the wrong end of a handgun. It is rare that we get particularly bent about it. Read the news, it is all over the place. The notion that drones would be somewhat less spectacular, notable, or newsworthy than the use of handguns is absurd. The use of handguns to accomplish this has become so mundane that you have to search hard to find most of it in the news, unless the action is at a shopping mall in broad daylight. In fact we would pay far more attention to these deaths if they were using drones to do the deed.

Paying more attention might be better. It is at least arguable. The point however is pretty much moot because they will not be doing it. Sniper rifles are so much less newsworthy that they will be the first choice for many decades to come.

[Fumesucker]

7. People are really starting to get nervous about technology applied to spying/killing

A drone can observe you anywhere not under cover of some sort without you being aware of it in the slightest degree, at least you know when the helicopter is hovering over you.

Also drone technology is much more easily copied by even individuals than something like a helicopter. Any moran with an internet connection can put together a drone with onboard video camera for under a hundred bucks.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. We've had that capability with satellites for years. Decades, even.

[Fumesucker]

14. Satellites are truly significant investments of money, time and materiel

They really don't get used that often to check that you don't have any inappropriate plants growing in your garden.

Drones are just the opposite, cheap, disposable even.

They will be *everywhere* soon.

Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge there aren't any armed satellites.

[hfojvt]

61. so it's really all about the weed?

[jeff47]

71. You just described helicopters

which the police have owned for decades.

So, what's new about it with drones?

[Fumesucker]

75. Helicopters are hardly disposable and their operating costs are high

Drones are to helicopters as helicopters are to satellites cost wise.

Helicopters are also obvious, you know when one is flying above you, not so with drones they can be very stealthy.

[jeff47]

78. Helicopters are only obvious if they are flying low.

They don't have to.

Much like drones: Drones are plenty loud when they're flying low. But they don't have to.

Anyway, major cities have had 24/7 helicopter coverage for a few decades now. What, aside from the cost savings, makes drones different?

[ThomThom]

39. That is really what worries me is who in the future will have drones?

And what will they be used for? Murder for hire? Extortion? Robbery surveillance? Kidnapping?.... W Bush has opened up a mean can of worms. Terrorists are buying and building them at this moment. I'm sure North Korea is in the market. China has built them. What is next drone disarmament? Not until some one starts doing what we are doing around the world.

[LeftInTX]

48. Every new technology requires clarification

The internet is used for surveillance, but the how and why and to what extent. DNA itself opened up cans of worms.

[randome]

64. Outlaw DNA!

[MADem]

79. Indeed. No one is alive to remember the furor over fingerprints!

But it happened! Over a hundred years ago!

[KoKo]

87. +1

[OldDem2012]

9. How many Americans get pissed off when the police kill a US citizen....

...because the police "suspected" him or her of committing a crime? Based on what I've seen in the past, very damn few.

Why should a drone be considered any different from any other police weapon, other than the fact it is remotely piloted and carries a missile with an explosive warhead?

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Drones

Drone 1




Drone 2

[OldDem2012]

15. Interesting response, but you didn't answer my question. nt.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. The point was, there is no difference between a drone and other police weapons

And not all drones have missiles on them. Some shoot conventional bullets. And some may be unarmed and just used for targeting. New ones will be developed, I have no doubt. Some even the size of flies, quite possibly, that could fly into your bedroom.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Police helicopters don't fire at people and they have people inside of them. Two differences.

It is also not the case that 'an official' can order one of us dead using due process, as the execution of a prisoner requires judge, jury, attorneys and the court orders the execution not 'an official', that's what due process means. There are dozens of people involved in that process.
Your post is either satire or sheer gibberish, not sure which.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Due process is almost certainly a lengthy process. Almost certainly it involves dozens of people.

Maybe even more than dozens. Scores. And it may involve time, too.

But at the end of the process, it still comes down to one person giving an order.

A person can be sentenced to death for a crime (I oppose the death penalty, by the way, and I also oppose the government killing our citizens for *any* reason and by any means) but that will not be carried out until the governor (not the sentencing judge) signs the order.

The post was neither satire nor gibberish.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. So 'an official' giving an order is the same to you as a long process in which a jury delivers the

sentence? No defendant in a US capital case goes without a jury, the jury imposes the punishment. This is very different than 'an official' acting alone and in secret. Trials are open to the public. The governor can not order an execution without all of that process. That is just one more level of process.
The process is important, and central to our system. Without the due process, it does not matter if one uses a drone or a stone to the head.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Are you lecturing or debating?

You see, you just said what I said. No one person can order an execution on their own.

For the record, again, I oppose anyone in our government having the ability to order the execution of a US citizen. Period. No equivocation.

[quaker bill]

21. Handguns have people holding them

people are killed nearly every day in the process of arrest, by people who are holding handguns. Is it really better?

[geek tragedy]

31. People inside police helicopters do in the US.

Drones don't, in the US.

[jeff47]

72. Actually, police helicopters do fire at people.

In fact, police in Philadelphia used a helicopter to drop a bomb in the 70s.

as the execution of a prisoner requires judge, jury, attorneys and the court orders

Yet a police officer can shoot you for "resisting arrest", mostly on their say-so. And it happens many times every day.

[The Straight Story]

16. In this case, it is about the weapon

The government will be more free to use such as the risk and cost of deployment is cheaper.

Taking a life of someone using a helicopter requires more work and cost and potentially can kill the crew members if it crashes.

Reducing killing to a video game makes it easier to do so - as we have seen in other countries where we kill people all the time, including innocent ones, and then have other countries cover up for it (like we did in Yemen and no one still cares about that).

Drones are cheaper so there will be more - from cost to produce to keep flying.

And when our government kills, they need no evidence and no trial. We will never see evidence for all those killed because we "Don't need to". And the more birds they can put in the air, the more accidents can happen (and there have been studies on this, and again DU and media ignores such posts).

[onenote]

40. The entire history of warfare is the history of weaponry evolving

People have waged war against each other for all of recorded history. THe earliest battles were waged essentially through hand to hand combat. Then bows and arrows evolved as a means of killing without being in arm's length of your enemy. Then firearms. Initially, you still had to be pretty much in direct view of your enemy and you could only fire one shot before reloading. But the capabilities of firearms improved in terms of accuracy, range, and firepower. Then of course armored vehicles replaced horses and wagons and aircraft became tools of war. And each of these tools of war continued to evolve as well. And artillery evolved into missiles -- surface to surface, surface to air, air to surface, and air to air.

Defensive tools also have evolved, including armaments, radar, interceptors. And improvements in medicine have made it possible for military personnel to survive injuries that would have been fatal in the past.

The one constant -- war still gets waged. One could argue that as war-making technology improves and gets less expensive, war will be waged more "easily" or frequently. But one could also argue that as one side gains a technological advantage over another side, some conflicts will be avoided, at least until the side lagging behind catching up.

Opposing the use of drones in military conflict makes about as much sense as complaining about any other advance in the technology of warfare (with the exception of nuclear warfare which presented change in the nature of weapons of mass destruction that truly was a difference in kind, rather than degree, over prior weapons.

[The Straight Story]

42. My Take:

"The one constant -- war still gets waged. One could argue that as war-making technology improves and gets less expensive, war will be waged more "easily" or frequently. But one could also argue that as one side gains a technological advantage over another side, some conflicts will be avoided, at least until the side lagging behind catching up. "

I am more talking about our society and values and using such here - and how it is now 'sides'. Us and the government.

And on waging war I get and understand what you are saying, but by my values and understanding we are not in a war. We are hunting for people who have, as far as anyone can tell, not attacked us and who have little if not ability at this point to do so (sure, we can say some in that org have done so but that is like saying all people of X religion are responsible for what someone else did years ago).

If N. Korea sends a nuke our way and we can use drones in the fight, fine by me. Take out their ability to wage war and leave at that point - what we should have done in Iraq instead of occupying it.

It's not so much about wars but about the power we give the few over the many and the choices we as a people make of how and when to use what weapons we have. We could have nuked half the middle east, but for some reason we didn't. So obviously there are some things we stop and think about before doing as a country - the use of drones and killing people (while having other countries claim they did to cover up for us) is something we need to all talk about...instead of some trial I see on TV all the time about a woman who killed some guy.

[Blue_Tires]

62. +1

And the canary in the coal mine no one is mentioning is the VERY next step in technological evolution will be COMPLETE automation -- Just type in a list of targets, launch it and forget about it....Eventually, they could have improved AI to independently search, evaluate, and service targets all on their own...

Is that the future any of us wants??

[CJCRANE]

76. That reminds me of a story I read in Isaac Asimov's Sci-Fi Magazine

back in the 80s or 90s.

There was a small flying bomb with AI (basically an intelligent drone) that had a kill order to go after some guy (he was just a regular guy but had broken some law or other).

The drone finds its target then hovers in the vicinity and orders everyone to get out of the way to avoid collateral damage.

The guy who is the target then strikes up a conversation with the drone and tries to persuade it not to carry out its order.

I can't remember the end of the story.

[msongs]

17. why allow an uneeded and unwanted device just so corporate whores can make profits?? nt

[MADem]

23. Many people erroneously believe that they are US-Only Technology.

The Chinese, Russians, French, Dutch, Germans, Swiss, Koreans, British, Canadians, Japanese, Brazilians and hell-you-name-it all operate them.

The rare country is the one that does NOT utilize the technology.


People are operating under a "USA=Evil Empire" false paradigm. It' just not true. Hasn't been for quite some time.

Drones are here to stay. No amount of carping is going to change that. This link will surprise those who aren't aware of what I've said, here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles

[Stinky The Clown]

26. And some of them look like cute little RC model airplanes.

Brookstone, at the mall, had a line of small RC helicopters they used to fly out in the publica areas.

[MADem]

35. But many of them do not. The French models are nothing to sneeze at.

Nor are the Chinese ones, or the Russian ones, or the British ones, or the Israeli ones (they've been at the drone game for decades, too)....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/zhuhai/
China Unveils New Killer Drones, Aims Them at Russia





http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/20/russia_tries_to_remove_images_of_altius_drone_from_the_internet.html
Russia Tries To Remove Images of New Drone From the Internet


Israeli Aerospace Heron:




This is a bell that will not be unrung. We're in the Throw away your buggy whips, invest in gas stations phase when it comes to these things. We are on the cusp of a big change. The time to crab about this, if anyone was going to do it, is when it was a TS program run out of Pax River in the late seventies, early eighties.

[BO 08]

41. Agreed

We're in the Throw away your buggy whips, invest in gas stations phase when it comes to these things. We are on the cusp of a big change.

And I think the chances my children, and theirs, die in a senseless war are a whole lot less likely because of them.

[baldguy]

24. Per the Attorney General of the United States:

"...we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad."

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Yup.

[msongs]

30. the same AG who says it's ok to let criminals get away with crime if they are too big? nt

[quaker bill]

25. To put them in a real bind

find that Benghazi could have been prevented with a drone strike or two... Or perhaps that we could have fried the attackers with some... What would a Rand Paul do?

[stevenleser]

29. I've said from the beginning that I think the focus on drones is a red herring

Either you are pro the use of force in a situation, or you aren't.

The only answer I have ever heard that is compelling in the other direction is what Medea Benjamin told me when I interviewed her and that is that in areas where drones have been operating frequently, i.e. the tribal areas of Pakistan, the inhabitants are terrorized by drones repeatedly hovering/circling overhead.

Other than that, if someone is killed by a drone or an assault by special forces, or a helicopter attack, or attack by a squadron of F-16's, they are just as dead. Focusing on the weapons system in question is a red herring.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. ^^This^^

[sabrina 1]

33. Why? The same reason there was a 'shitstorm' over them when Bush was president.

We are a democracy, well maybe, maybe not anymore. No Democracy ever has given one man or woman the power to decide who should live and who should die, never, not ever.

The fact that this is happening here, that they are not even hiding it, means that Bush's claim of having such powers, something we USED to object to on the Left at least, has been accepted.

We now live in a monarchy. And if you're okay with that, I am not. I like democracy. I know the history of monarchies and I don't want to live in one.

And that is why there is a shit storm over this issue. Amazing to me that anyone on this forum even has to ask that question.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. You do realize that I oppose extrajudicial killing of people, right?

I think said it pretty clearly upthread.

[BO 08]

44. I'm not so sure

No Democracy ever has given one man or woman the power to decide who should live and who should die, never, not ever.

If that isn't true does it invalidate the rest of your ideas?

[sabrina 1]

54. It is true, because a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it gives the power

normally given to a system of justice, to one person. That is a dangerous precedent and while mistakes have been made from time to time here, they need to be corrected, or when deliberate power grabs, such as the ones attempted by Bush. If they are not corrected, then it would be ludicrous to continue to call such a country a democracy. We have plenty of countries in the world where one person has that kind of power, we generally call them dictatorships.

[stevenleser]

67. There wasn't a shitstorm over drones when Bush was President. nt

[sabrina 1]

68. What? Were you around back then?

There certainly was a shit storm over extra-judicial killing by drone or any other method, on the LEFT of course, during the Bush years. There was a shit storm of protests over the Unitary Executive theory back then also. Of course none of the millions of people who opposed Bush and his criminal policies ever got much coverage here in the US by the Corporate media, so it's not a surprise that people might not know about it.

But there was most certainly huge opposition, there were law suits filed by various Liberal organizations, aside from the protests of ordinary people. I doubt I would even have known about those policies if it had not been for the 'shit stormS' that went on throughout his administration.

[stevenleser]

69. I don't think I ever heard drones discussed in the media or elsewhere before Obama. nt

[bluedigger]

34. I think you have it right.

Drones are just symbolic of a generalized distrust of government and technology. We embarked on this path when David dropped Goliath with a rock thrown from a sling. So to say.

[doc03]

37. If the police come at me with helicopters and assault rifles I have the

option of giving up and standing trial. The drone is the judge jury and executioner, totally against the constitution in my opinion.

[Zax2me]

43. Imagine president bush - not Presdient Obama - same scenarios

Still no problems?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. You clearly inferred a lot from an OP that did not espouse the use of the weapons.

The OP asks why the furor over them. It does not endorse their use.

[TheKentuckian]

47. How cheap, painless, secret, and widely proliferated does use of force need to be for you?

How few human souls do you want in the loop? How few chances do we really need to say no more?

Stop the war??? How do you know one is going but the dead and the grieving will know even if we are ignorant.

No sir, too little skin in the game for almost any hope of judicious usage over extended time. In fact the more the ignorant and un-inconvenienced the population is and the lower the economic cost with no eyes on the ball and no consequences the greater the chance of use and abuse.

Drones help elevate war and tyranny to the "why not?" phase of evolution. Good luck with that. The reason and the only reason we didn't have a nuclear war is obvious consequences and costs. The only reason wars end is because the cost become too high one way or the other.

Past that bottleneck is no even ground, the power will be abused. It is too damn easy and how would we put that toothpaste back in the tube? How do you fix a breakdown?

Time bomb. The price of setting it off are too close to zero not to blow it, it is simply a matter of how long and how autonomous the devices become before some fucker is going to get far enough from an arguable line to ever even see it again. These systems should be opposed in and of themselves not just the process the allows their use. I think they should be very tightly regulated that emerging uses would not be legally permissible at all, armed regarded the same as chemical weapons and use of nuclear.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. I oppose any government orders to kill US Citizens.

Drones, specifically, are here to stay. How they get used and why is the issue. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to rid ourselves of them.

[Harmony Blue]

46. The reason why is obvious that anyone has a brain cell

Drones can stay in the air for long periods of time, and they are difficult to spot and can easily be armed with hellfire missles A police helicopter isn't hard to spot or hear coming, and a person with a rifle in your face is still human. A cruise missle costs a lot more money to use, and you can easily miss an intended target (Afghanistan, Bin Laden).

The closer a person is to another human being the less likely they are of killing that human being unless they are mentally unstable. It has been proven repeatedely that there is a correlation of killing potential based on distance. Drones allow a person to kill from a great distance. This is by design so to create a massive disconnect with a human being with what they are to do. Ironically, drone operators suffer greater amount of PTSD and suicide rates.

This technology simply isn't something to play around with hence the outrage. The usage of drones is simply a slippery slope to justify assassination of public political figures and that is the next logical progression with these drones. Creates too much instability with the world sphere.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, King, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan . . . .

All with ordinary small arms by a single assassin. Only Kennedy and King were shot at less than very close range.

[Harmony Blue]

55. A foreign state didn't sanction such assassinations

drones allow proxy wars though.

You are being purposefully obtuse because you don't have any argument left.

[Stinky The Clown]

58. Lets start over. What is it that you think I am arguing?

Do you think I am endorsing the use of drones? Or am I endorsing government killing of US Citizens? Or am I endorsing using drones to kill us citizens?

What, exactly, are you arguing with me about? To argue, we have to hold differing viewpoints. What do you think your viewpoint is and what do you think my viewpoint is?

[Locrian]

50. There are rules that govern their use. I think the term is "due process".

"There are rules that govern their use. I think the term is "due process". "

And that's where the argument is full of holes. There is less and less "due process" - the system is driving a mentality to strike first and cover up later. Add to that that the $$$$$$$ dollars involved in pushing us more and more toward a police state because companies are getting filthy rich off 'security'.

But yes, it's not much different - just more invasive, more money, more powerful, more easier to cover up, etc.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. I agree with you. And yes, it is the system. Not the weapon. The system.

And the "system" has been inexorably on this path for the last many administrations, Democrat and repubican.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. This post would have made a better OP.

nt

[Stinky The Clown]

65. No. I wanted the OP I made.

Talking about "drones" is a distraction. And *many* people are distracted by them.

[Romulox]

60. Dimes to doughnuts the OP hasn't a clue what "due process" entails. But she approves of the killing

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Donuts to your puke you never read the thread.

I guess if I am a "she" I ought to let my hair grow out, too.

[Romulox]

81. Couldn't care less about your gender--it's the cheerleading for killing I'm disgusted by.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Congrats on TOTALLY missing the point, which was decidedly NOT cheerleading.

But you seem to be having fun, so keep on keepin' on with whatever makes ya feel good.

[Romulox]

83. I didn't miss any point. I reject your *justifications*.

The fact is, process-less assassination of American citizens is greatly facilitated by the use of armed drones. To say that the drones are not the point misses the point--our political process does not and will not protect us from abuses of power.

Therefore, any deflection of the attention on these drones is apologia, imo. Hope you didn't miss MY point.

[99Forever]

63. Uh huh. Why would there be furor over the perfect authoritarian weapon...

... to silence ALL dissent? How dare anyone question our Corporate Owned Masters?

I'm shocked to hear it. SHOCKED I SAY!

[whatchamacallit]

70. False framing... again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2472890

[Stinky The Clown]

73. Had you read this entire thread's discussion . . . . .

. . . . you might have seen that what you link to is exactly the point here. Just stated in a way to provoke an actual opportunity for actual discussion.

[whatchamacallit]

77. Ah...

my bad. Sorry.

[arely staircase]

80. right on the money imho eom

[Paul E Ester]

84. Its many issues and not so simple

1. Should the US run an assassination program.

2. Should the US build out a worldwide semi automated surveillance and assassination platform.

3. Should state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies have unfettered use of drones or should they be limited. These are issues about search 4th amend, privacy, should drones be used to ticket speeders etc. Can they fly around your yard in a micro drone. Lots of stuff to figure out before you get to cops killing people from the air.

4. Should we support drones and their impact on labor. - drones will replace crop duster pilots, cargo pilots maybe one day you fly on a passenger plane that is automated. All these things are coming.

Fed ex has a proposal where they take one pilot in one plane and have several drone planes following him essentially an airplane train in the sky.

5. When drones screw up who's responsible, who is liable.

6. Can I take my personal drone to the zoo, the football game, school eventually these things will fit in your pocket and will be as ubiquitous as GPS units are today.

7. many more issues.

To summarize we have a huge revolution coming and it's not just about killing.

[Recursion]

85. Drones don't kill people, the order to fire kills people

Or something like that?

[KoKo]

88. The Laws have not kept up with the Technological Advances...

There is an imbalance. Innocent people are dying...until the laws can catch up. But, with Drone Policy still secret...how can the laws catch up?

[Puzzledtraveller]

86. I thought I would add an often overlooked situation involving drones

If the situation exists over seas and definitely within the US a scenario in which military force is called for to be used in a manner that if being conducted by previous traditional means, that being piloted aircraft, orders being given that are clearly unlawful and of a nature so atrocious that 1) the orders would never be given because they are so egregious 2) the orders may be willfully disobeyed by the person(s) charged with executing the orders then a unmanned aerial drone changes the game entirely, fundamentally in a way that could never be counted on by traditional standards and practices. The frequency and fluidity that drones afford military actions also further remove moral considerations that previously are accounted for in executing orders.

It will be said that the drones are piloted, just remotely. This is true but the human element is greatly reduced. Drones will also be able to execute orders without a human operator assessing targets, I'm certain this is already happening. Eventually they will not require a human operator at all, just a computer, that has no conscious, no sense of right or wrong.