Remotely Piloted Aircraft ("Drones") the ethical and legal considerations.

An excellent discussion from the George W. Bush Institutes' show Ideas in Action



Featuring Gary Solis of Georgetown U., P. W. Singer of Brookings and Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution.

An extended discussion of the ramifications involved with civilians (CIA personnel) flying these aircraft. What is their status under the law of armed conflict? As use of these aircraft spreads, the laws of war, just war theory, treaties, all will have to adapt. But, Sofaer makes a good point. There is precedent for CIA personnel as combatants. CIA folks helped target in Afghanistan. They were on the ground, and therefore combatants. Answer the question how they are to be treated legally, and you've gone a long way toward answering how remote pilots should be treated.

The discussion of collateral damage seems to have missed a primary point: CD is lessened with the use of this technology (despite ID errors that can be made), so, at least in regard to that aspect of armed conflict, it seems RPA are morally justifiable. Certainly more so than blind missile attacks. This is especially so when they are used with low yield munitions and extended monitoring of potential targets. But, Singer points out a frustrating PR fact. We make these efforts with the end in mind of limiting CD, but some in Pakistan hold us to blame, and consider us "enemy number one" for using "drones."

All three are agreed that the laws of war are lagging behind technology. That is also true of the ethics of warfare. But, as long as there is war, and technological advancement, this will be so. No reason not to forge ahead and work toward solutions to these questions.