I don’t know what particular cases you’re referring to, nor does it seem important. You seem to be talking about drone strikes in general, and I don’t think the situation is as clear-cut as you do. Providing my own answers really won’t accomplish anything in changing your mind, and is kind of inconsistent with the Socratic method. I had hoped that by answering the questions you might come to see that the issue is more complex than you are suggesting, even if you don’t agree with drone strikes.
If you want some answers, here are my thoughts:
Executions are typically punishment for prior misdeeds, or acts of retribution. I don’t think drone strikes are punishment or retributive in nature: they are done to prevent attacks. Prevention and punishment are two very different things. Intelligence is preventative in nature, while law enforcement is punitive in nature—this distinction explains why there are different constitutional and due process requirements for intelligence and law enforcement investigations.
- I obviously think the US has a legitimate interest in preventing terrorist attacks.
- When terrorists are in foreign countries, I think that the ideal is to closely cooperate with the foreign government, with capture of the terrorists as the primary goal. Detention of these terrorists until they no longer pose a threat (such as with prisoners of war or with the mentally ill and suicidal — all of which are done without neither a criminal trial nor showing of wrongdoing, as preventative measures) is probably the best option.
- When countries are unwilling or unable to help capture terrorists, the US is in a much more difficult position. Insertion of US strike teams into foreign countries to attempt to capture the terrorists is deeply problematic and may be more damaging and less effective than drone strikes. It’s a difficult question, and drone strikes may sometimes be the best answer.
- Killing people in war is, to virtually everyone, not the same as executing them.
- I don’t know if you can technically be at war with Al Qaeda. We have traditionally thought of wars as being between states, and consisting mainly of uniformed combatants. This model doesn’t accurately reflect the current state of affairs, and I think it makes sense to think of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants just as Germans considered the un-uniformed French resistance to be enemy combatants and the US Army considered un-uniformed Viet Cong as enemy combatants in Viet Nam.
- There’s not a lot of due process on the battlefield, at least before the enemy is captured.
