Summations Only

Let's ignore, for now, that equating the action with the nuking of Japan already renders the drone strikes morally ambiguous. I appreciate that some or most people have already resolved the nuking question in the US's favor.I believe the drone attacks are morally distinguishable from the bombing of Hiroshima. I don't think the civilian casualties in Pakistan are intended to have any deterrent effect at all. In fact it is predictable and expcted that such strikes have the opposite result. Instead a judgment has been made that the lives of any innocent bystanders are insufficiently important to deter the use of drones in particular instances.Further, I'd also suggest that relying on an American law definition of the term murder is highly inappropriate, and that relying on an American definition of what non-US-citizens ought to be subject to arrest in Pakistan is biased even further. Murder is not morally wrong simply because it is against US law or because there is a commandment against it. Murder is mala in se, (evil in and of itself) and the evil attached to it need not be answered by whether an arrest is in ordr.So call it 'Red rum' if you must, but that still ducks the question of why there is no international outcry against the killing of civilians in drone attacks. I find this response simplistic (Panda's term) even beyond the standard applicable to other aspects of the post. Some actions taken in war are punished as war crimes and are illegal. For example, only a few people would argue that the well publicized killings by marines at Haditha did not include murders. Again, I recognize that this understanding is not universal.As a final point, I'll note that not all murders are first degree murder.

The balancing is different for the reasons I pointed out. Of course it is possible to discuss the balancing in more abstract terms and to insist that the reasons are the same. You are correct. I did not make that showing or claim to have done so. What I did do is indicate that the issue was worthy of discussion. But the discussion would be pointless if we could simply say, well there is a war going on as you did.ABE: The death's need not be considered murder to be determined unjust and to be avoided. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Clarify

I did not address this in my post, but I acknowledge that you did make this point. Sorry about that.

It occurs to me that not a single Chinese person was murdered by government soldiers during the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, despite the fact that up to 1000 people died of high velocity lead poisoning. I wonder after reading some of the posts here why I thought an internal Chinese matter was a big deal?After all the Chinese government does not accept any blame for the incident.

Surely this question is rhetorical. Of course we cannot. The question is whether we can hold the button pusher to a high standard. Because certainly we can and do assign responsibility based on the mental state of and the danger to the killer. I would address this point in answering Panda's question about why accidental killings by soldiers are different from accidental killings by drones.The situations are totally distinct, as is the nature of the "accident". With respect to the shooter, there is a difference between accidents that result from the "fog of war" and deaths resulting from spraying bullets and missiles at targets surrounded by civilians in situations where the shooter has chosen the situation in which to engage and where the shooter is in absolutely no danger.Further the opprobrium attaches not only to the shooter but to the person placing the shooter in the situation. It may well be that the situations are markedly similar for that perspective.Also, as you have pointed out, we are not at war with Pakistan. That alone ought to make it harder to justify killing innocent Pakistanis. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By theoretical nature, it is meant that the suspected militant is only projected to be a future danger. The accidentally dispatched are collateral damage justified by the hypothesis that some risk will be mitigated that is worse, in the decision maker's mind, than killing the accidentally dispatched.

You are correct in an Orwellian speak sense.Danger means a risk for future harm. Drone targets are generally not in the act of shooting, and we generally don't know of a certainty what their future plans are. The targets are chosen because the present a thread of future harm, and the calculus is that the downside, which seems mainly to be assessed as whether Pakistan will get sufficiently mad as to make a differnce, is acceptable.

Past events are not dangers. Past events are predictors.Describe the danger presented by any one of the 13 people killed in the drone attack in Yemen. So far, the targets are described only as suspected militants. In your description, I expect you to avoid any reference to future harm that might be caused, since according to you, they were a risk to cause present harm.

Funny? Hardly.Since you don't have personal knowledge, what is the basis of your assertion that there was a clear and present danger? You seem to know there was danger without knowing any details of the current activities of those who were killed.How is it clear that someone is going to harm someone in the future if he is only suspected of being a terrorist? What level of suspicion is required to justify killing uninvolved people in a country we are not at war with? Aren't those the kinds of things we ought to be thinking about before we say the danger is clear? Yes, the title does have some hyperbole, but the question of why the US gets away with the attacks does not depend on the attacks being murder.My point is that you are talking well beyond the scope of what you actually know.

Perhaps this point is clear to everyone, but there are different classes of negligence. Just calling something negligence does not place an act in the "do not prosecute as muder" category.I think it is important to distinguish criminal negligence from the ordinary negligence involved in things like car accidents caused by driver error. "Ordinary Negligence" would be the appropriate characterization if the drone operator (or the person giving the order to fire) had some good reason to believe that the missile was not going to kill the non-combatants and innocents present at the wedding.But there is no such hope or reason to believe that children and great-grand parents aren't going to be killed when that missile hits. In fact, it is just as likely that the target will escape as it is that an innocent death will be avoided. So rather that a failure to act with the proper care, which would constitute ordinary negligence, we have indifference to the fact, known and appreciated before firing, that innocent people are going to be killed.In short calling the collateral deaths accidents is absolutely a false characterization. Collateral deaths are simply considered incidental, and cannot be justified as negligence. In a criminal context, a similar mental state would constitute reckless indifference, which would allow manslaughter or second degree murder charge to be brought. If the deaths occurred when during commission of a felony, capital murder charges would be appropriate.Lest someone latch onto the fact that manslaughter is not murder, remember that we are talking about a "manslaughter" as a plan of action. In a criminal context, such a campaign would surely be murder.When considering all types of negligence, we do take into account the mental state and circumstances of the accused. When a soldier is in harms way, we don't expect the soldier to make calm decisions and perfect judgments when his life is at stake if he makes an error. IMO, it is reasonable not to give the remote drone operator sitting in a cubicle the same consideration. True. Negligence doesn't mean that. But murder does not require a specific intent to target or kill the victim. Instead the act leading to the deaths was surely intentional and intended or expected to create a large radius death zone. We aren't talking about accidentally leaving duct tape over some air vents and causing a crash. We're talking about deliberately firing a missile at a target knowing that only a fraction of the people who will be killed are suspected of being terrorists. But the person ordering the strike simply doesn't give a hoot about the collateral deaths.

This is decidedly not my position. I did serve in the military and I carried around weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using them when necessary.I haven't said, expressed, or implied, a single thing about how soldiers ought to behave.I see the smiley face in your post, but I don't see anything the least bit funny thereto attached.

Because, for example, the US has already tried the person in question for the attack and has decided that reducing him a couple of levels in rank is the appropriate punishment.Or maybe the US does not consider the attack to be a crime at all.The US would never extradite an American born citizen to Iran regardless of what he has done.

The example was hypothetical and applies to no one. Since the US is doing drone strikes, the hypo cannot apply to any real situation involving current strikes.However, perhaps the hypo might apply to a reprisal against someone like Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich or one of the marines for whom charges were dropped in the Haditha incident. Let's hypothetically suggest that some Iranian citizens were victims in that incident.NoNukes