I've been a little lax on this blog lately, partly because I'm not entirely sure why I should bother, but probably equally because I tend to like Obama in general and was happy he was reelected. But if anything, that only makes it more disconcerting that he has let himself become more and more identified with drone warfare.
In fact, in this article Bill Moyers and Michael Winship from
Nation of Change dub him "The Drone Ranger". The material on drones and an investigation of their legality is in the second half.
The first commenter there does raise an ethical question, though, and one that I think is part of the administration's thinking on this. Isn't it better not to risk American lives in pursuit of our enemies when possible? How would a manned attack on an enemy be better?
My own initial reaction is that less risk for the pursuer means less caution in the outcome. For a start. But of course my real objection here is to hunting people down and killing them (and sometimes those who happen to be nearby) without due process. The blanket excuse of being at war on some kind of permanent footing seems a very slippery slope.
