The way you have edited my post doesn’t make any sense. I said “because x, y.”; you’ve mangled it to “because x.” Obviously I agree with x, but you haven’t shown how y follows. So, once again, how does the fact that drone strikes fuel terrorism support your claim that the point of drone strikes is to terrorize?
I’m also not sure how my educating myself (with your kind assistance) would really help prove your point that drone attacks are somehow intended to terrorize.
I’m not sure that in traditional battlefields people get to just up and leave. I don’t think Germans or Japanese (soldiers or otherwise) could just up and leave to Norway or Switzerland or something, and they certainly didn’t get many chances to protest error.
I would guess that drone strikes are very costly in many respects and that the US isn’t just targeting everyone on super thin evidence. And I suspect that most of their targeting decisions are pretty uncontroversial, but at the same time it’s true that there could be better oversight. A recent BB post links to a report on Obama’s statement saying that perhaps a (secret) court to review those placed on the target list would be a way to add additional oversight. Now, I’m sure you’ll object to the secrecy of the court, but two branches are more oversight than one, and I don’t know how you could effectively do this in open court.
