“The use of drone strikes in Pakistan and around the world has been attacked as counterproductive and ineffective but the question of whether such strikes are legal is less frequently raised. When and where does a drone strike contravene international law, and what are the implications of their illegal use for the hoped-for spread of the rule of law to the present battlegrounds of 'the war on terror'?”
“Collateral damage in the use of such sophisticated machines is one of their main constraints, even when their employment is formally consistent with international humanitarian law. Several reports have revealed a 1:50 casualties rate (for each targeted individual, there are 50 collateral casualties, not to speak of loss of property). Daniel Byman argued in Foreign Affairs that Predator attacks force the enemy to concentrate on defence (sic) rather than offense.”
The extension of the battlefield beyond the effective zone of operations, implying a right to kill without warning the enemies of a state anywhere seems. to the Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Executions unjustified.
The tactic of seeking out enemies, away from the battlefield, appears to be effective but illegal according to the rules of war. But beyond that we have the question of morality
Conservatives like to call the USA a Christian nation and have been outraged by Obama’s assertion that we are not a Christian nation but have Christian values. They ignore the fact of the separation of Church and State in the Constitution, the fact that thousands of Jews and other non-Christians died in WWII, and the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Deists.
How Christian is the practice of killing innocent people in the defense of other innocent people. What is a Christian’s acceptable rate? How many innocents can we kill to save one innocent? What would Jesus say?