I had to see the controversial film "Zero Dark Thirty" for myself in order to decide if, as charged, it advanced the case for "enhanced interrogation methods," military-speak for torture. It did not, in my view. What it did was affirm the hideous and inhumane nature of torture no matter where it is carried out, and by whom. It should never be used by any country that positions itself as a moral leader.
Now I need to see the documentary "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield." It is likely to confirm my growing antipathy toward the ever-increasing use of drones, especially following the recently leaked memo that has alarmed so many in public and private quarters.
Reading a piece by George Monbiot in the Guardian in December made me think about drones. The essay, called "Bug Splats," was written shortly after the Newtown massacre. Why, Mr. Monbiot, wondered, were the murders of children by a deranged man in Connecticut any more worthy of the world's grief than the children killed in countries like Pakistan as a matter of American policy? If the victims of drone strikes are mentioned at all, he wrote, "they are discussed in terms which suggest they are less than human." An article in Rolling Stone Magazine, he said, alleged that "people who operate drones describe their casualties as "bug splats' since seeing bodies through a green video image gives them the sense of an insect being crushed."
This is harsh and emotional stuff. So I went in search of fact and further opinion. Facts were hard to come by since much of what happens with drones is classified. But here are some things I learned. The Pentagon has about 7,000 drones. A decade ago it had 50 of them. In the 2012 budget the Obama administration asked Congress for almost $5 billion for more drones, now seen as crucial for fighting terrorism. A reported 1,900 insurgents in Pakistan's tribal regions have been killed by American drones since 2006 and in 2011 a drone killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
Here's the problem: the United States is not at war with Pakistan or Yemen and that makes their use in these countries officially illegal. For the first time in history a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out military missions -- killing people -- in countries where the U.S. is not officially at war.
Proponents of drone use argue that so long as they are grounded in sound intelligence information, they enable the U.S. to attack terrorists with a fair degree of precision without risking American lives. Mistakes happen in war, they say, but not as much "collateral damage" -- killing of innocents -- occurs as would if bombs or troops were being used. If we didn't use drones, they argue, what action could the U.S. take to stop Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?
But concerns are beginning to surface as drones become more ubiquitous and more deadly. A United Nations panel led by Ben Emmerson, special investigator for the UN Human Rights Council, has begun to look at "drone strikes and other forms of remotely targeted killing." Of particular concern are 25 selected drone strikes that have been conducted in recent years in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Palestinian territories. Noting that it is not only the U.S. coming under scrutiny - 50 other states have the technology to develop "active drone arsenals" -- Emmerson says "it is completely unacceptable to allow the world to drift blindly toward the precipice without any agreement between states as to the circumstances in which drone strike targeted killings are lawful, and on the safeguards necessary to protect civilians."
Such safeguards will not come soon enough for the 64 children killed during the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration. (Drone attacks began during the Bush administration. One of them killed 69 children.) During those three years, a report by the Stanford and New York university law schools suggests, there were 259 drone strikes. They killed an estimated 569 civilians. Some say that is a conservative estimate.