Sure, a terrorist will know these things and a civilian may or may not. I assumed that when you divided the “probable terrorists” into those who should be treated under a war model and those who should be treated under a law-enforcement model, you meant the war model to apply to actual terrorists, and the law-enforcement model to apply to innocent civilians. And at any rate it’s clear that a lot of innocent civilians in places like Waziristan do feel that the US is at war with them and they may be killed (which was one of your earlier efficiency-based objections).
I keep talking about them because they do exist, and because they exist there are valid reasons to support drone strikes and killings. You keep talking about accuracy—which is a concern—but does not mean that drone strikes are wrong per se any more than the inaccuracy of the criminal justice system means that criminal trials are wrong per se. And I agree that there should be robust measures in place to ensure that the targets of these strikes are legitimate, but I don’t think it’s either reasonable or practical to expect that these procedures will rise to the level of criminal trials.
And yes, abuses at Abu Ghraib have occurred. And been made public. And been addressed. The torture there occurred over a period of about 6 months, which doesn’t seem like “so long” to me, though it is certainly longer than anyone would like. The issues, however, ultimately came to light and were addressed.
For one thing, it’s unclear if any civilians have been targeted. I mean, it’s possible, but at the moment I’m not aware of anyone saying that the target of a drone strike was not actually a terrorist or a civilian. There has certainly been civilian collateral damage, but that’s not the same as saying that civilians are being targeted.
I’ve said on multiple occasions that the preventative and prospective nature of things like intelligence and counter-terrorism involve a different standard than the retrospective and punitive criminal justice system. When the damage has already been done and there is minimal/no risk of further injury, such as in law enforcement actions, there is little risk to affording people greater rights. But when there is an opportunity to prevent injury, people have relatively less protection of their own rights in deference to the rights of others that they may impinge upon. That’s basically how things operate, whether you agree with it or not.
On the other hand, I don’t think you’ve answered my repeated question about what you think an appropriate response is. Can the US take any action against terrorists overseas, or must they wait until the terrorists enter the US and/or have committed a terrorist act? If they can act, what kind of process is due? The exact same process as criminal defendants receive?
