Costs are a safeguard. This example is directly related to killing people, but for a long time the cost of surveillance was a very real and effective safeguard against mass surveillance. Following people around took a lot of people, and before you could simply slap a GPS on someone’s car limited government resources meant that these resources would only be expended on important targets. And if cost is not a viable argument, why do anti-death penalty advocates continually use the high cost of executing someone as a reason why it should be abolished, and why are some legislators listening, and [why did New Mexico use it as a reason to abolish the death penalty][2]? Does cost alone ensure that rights are safeguarded? No, but I never claimed that it did: it’s simply one factor.
And do we ask the military to kill terrorists? It sounds like most people here certainly aren’t. I’m not sure that drone strikes are as popular in the US as capital sentences are, and I’m not sure that politicians support it the way many of them support the death penalty. On the other hand, most people probably don’t care very much wither way. But most people probably don’t care (or historically haven’t cared) about the collateral damage of executing innocent people, either. (I’ve also not seen the administration say or suggest that males can never be considered or acknowledged as collateral damage.)
[2]: http://www.nmrepeal.org/[quote=“chenille, post:46, topic:21215”]
Adding a court review is better if it’s actually another layer of oversight, but there needs to be a way to ensure they do, instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Secret courts have a pretty clear track record in this regard. Suggesting one without any special way to keep it independent, then, amounts to much the same thing as before: asking that we have faith that nobody would be targeted without good reason.
[/quote]
Hey, you’ve also pointed out that regular courts don’t do a great job, either, and when it comes to comparing regular courts with secret courts, I’m not sure the regular courts are much better. For example, wiretap warrants granted through regular court have rejection rates just as low as the secret FISA court: from 2002-2012, [only 7 out of 23,925 wiretap requests were denied by regular federal courts][2]. Independence and avoiding capture is a real concern, but it’s one that also affects regular courts and I’m not sure there is a very effective way to ensure independence while still respecting the need for secrecy in these proceedings.
[2]: Table Wire 7—Wiretap Wiretap (December 31, 2012) | United States Courts[quote=“chenille, post:46, topic:21215”]
But soldiers do usually go on the battlefield conscious that they are soldiers, and that they need to either surrender or expect the enemy to try and kill them. Probably people who join Al Qaeda know the same, but there is no point someone innocent mistaken for a target has that opportunity. They live their life until they’re killed, and we never learn our mistake so call it a job well done, and wonder why the Middle East is still so hostile.
[/quote]
I’ve no doubt true that mass drone strikes are counterproductive and make the targeted regions more prone to terrorism, and are not good policy unless collateral damage is truly minimized (something which gives the military good reason to ensure that collateral damage is minimized and only real threats are targeted), but this kind of efficiency argument is more about whether the strikes are optimal than about whether they are justifiable. It’s about whether it’s a good idea to be a jerk as opposed to whether you have the right to be a jerk.
And I’m not sure what your distinction is. Soldiers know they’re soldiers who can be killed, as do al Qaeda agents. And civilians in wars run the very high risk of being innocently killed in war, just as there is a more limited risk to civilians around al Qaeda members. And it’s not like we don’t learn of the mistakes, as people have cited numerous stories about collateral damage in this thread. I kind of suspect that the military and CIA have even more information than makes it into the press, but it’s clear that I give the military and CIA more credit for their institutional expertise than you do. Nor do I think they are wholly lacking in internal procedures and reviews, or that those making decisions are unconcerned with collateral damage.
There’s no doubt the system makes mistakes. Hell, mistakes in WWII cost millions of civilians their lives, and you’ve already mentioned how mistakes in domestic criminal law results in the execution of innocent people. I’m not sure how a system of advocacy for suspected terrorists would work, and the only reasonable solution (special advocates who do not contact the suspected terrorists and who are sworn to secrecy) would almost certainly be dismissed by you as being insufficient and subject to capture by the court/military.
There are lots of reasons not to target innocent people, from the law, to the cost, to the effect it has on creating new terrorists, to the political impact of such strikes. These are reasons why the government likely does take efforts to ensure that innocent people are not targeted, even though in principle they are justified in performing these strikes.
Come on. You’ve already said that these probable terrorists know “that they need to either surrender or expect the enemy to try and kill them.” And as for your second point, it’s true that they don’t have the ability to defend themselves or advocate for themselves. I don’t think soldiers have ever had this right, nor have targets of surveillance. It’s also true that al Qaeda itself could remove this problem by requiring that their members wear uniforms so that there is no risk of mistaking a civilian for an al Qaeda member. Of course, the very idea of guerilla warfare is to remove the distinction between soldier and civilian to make it difficult to target you, and this obviously places the opponent in a difficult position. Again, it’s difficult to see what an acceptable/viable alternative might be. The idea of a special court (with perhaps advocates for the suspected terrorists) seems to me to be the most realistic option, but you’ve already voiced your objections to this.
And yes,I do consider the distinction in terminology to be important. It’s the difference between sating a fact and imputing intent. It’s the difference between saying someone is wrong and calling them a liar. It’s the difference between calling someone a soldier and calling them a murderer. It’s needlessly polarizing language that obscures complexity, of the kind we would decry if it appeared on Fox News.
