1. America's hypocrisy and disregard of mutuality in international policy
"... [T]he administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international law. For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel, and most countries still object to such measures.
But since the first targeted killing by the United States in 2002, two administrations have taken the position that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies and can legally defend itself by striking its enemies wherever they are found."
And in other news, Tupac is dead. Moving on...
2. When to use drones - only as a last resort in the face of great impending danger, or as a more mainstream tool to be utilised on a more frequent basis?
"Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory."
3. The lack of transparency apparent from even the very beginnings of the legislative process.
"Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court, fighting lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence of the drone program in Pakistan.
... Many people inside and outside the government have argued for far greater candor about all of the strikes, saying excessive secrecy has prevented public debate in Congress or a full explanation of their rationale. Experts say the strikes are deeply unpopular both in Pakistan and Yemen, in part because of allegations of large numbers of civilian casualties, which American officials say are exaggerated."
Lack of disclosure not only between the government and the public, but also within the government and Congress itself. How is such regulation to be fairly passed when even many government officials are unaware of what is really going on with the programme?
4. The merits of LKY's model of a "few good men" to rule the masses, versus the Western concept of a heavier dependence on democratic model itself (rather than the individuals involved in ruling)
"The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency."
This is the kind of problem that crops up when the risk of the reigns being handed to a more trigger-happy, inexperienced Commander-in-chief arises. When it comes down to it, either school of thought is rather naive and simplistic. In this aspect, I would applaud Obama's disciplined adherence to the rule of law and his lack of hubris:
" 'One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,' Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” on Oct. 18."
Contrast this to Morsi's exemption of his own decrees from judicial review - the subject of another major headline this week - in what some see as a blatant disregard of the separation of powers. (But yet again, could his proponents be right in claiming it is necessary in the light of the unreliability of the Egyptian Judiciary itself, being a relic of the old regime?).
When it comes down to it, the line is hard to draw between the "ideal Western democracy" - complete with its rule of law - and what is needed for a particular society.
5. Science fiction gloom and doom!
"The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” he said."
Ah, the slippery slope. This may be me indulging my psychology background, but there really is something to be said for the difference between killing a man on the field, or even carpet bombing; and the much more isolated, vicarious experience of operating a drone. Would one go as far as to liken it to a video game, where the images on the screen are so detached that they may as well be unreal? Does one contemplate the consequences of taking other lives as much in such a situation?
