Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say 'dying' are you referring to civilians or soldiers? No civilian supports killing by drone in their home town. Drone targeting is often indiscriminate and always unaccountable. Because drone kills are anonymous to anyone but the killer, it allows soldiers to act invisibly by remote control. And now we want to give that responsibility to robots? That'd be a truly terrible precedent for future warfare. Woul…
Drone targeting is often indiscriminate and always unaccountable. This is just wrong and not helpful to the discussion. Have you read (or even seen thanks to YT) anything about how "drone targeting" by US forces is actually accomplished besides media outrage when a bomb misses? Mistakes are made, but targeting is far, far from indiscriminate. And being "unaccountable" is not exclusive to drone warfare. "Would you be…
As I understand it, the call for a drone kill of an insurgent target is made by the JSOC ...or... by a CIA officer in Langley. In the latter, the case for discriminate sufficiency is entirely up to the CIA and its current set of political priorities for that target, which is NOT shared with the drone team or their chain of command, nor with any non-CIA entity.
I've seen no mention that the CIA is NO LONGER killing with drones (which became one of the established practices for drone use in Afghanistan about 5 years ago, IIRC). This program is very much one that Google would serve in targeting drones, which is why I mention it.
No doubt the CIA would claim their reasoning behind each kill order was discriminate. But if my description of SOP is correct and the CIA is still in charge of many drone kills, that makes them unaccountable in any practical sense.
For some background on CIA's targeting of drone strikes:
"Transferring CIA Drone Strikes to the Pentagon" https://www.cfr.org/report/transferring-cia-drone-strikes-pe...